The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-06-17 TOWN BOARD MEETING JUNE 17, 1996 7:00 P.M. MTG # 24 RES263-278 BOH 13-15 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Supervisor Fred Champagne Councilman Betty Monahan Councilman Theodore Turner Councilman Connie Goedert Councilman Carol Pulver TOWN COUNSEL Mark Schachner TOWN OFFICIALS Jim Martin, Executive Director Of Community Development PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN CAROL PULVER Supervisor Champagne called meeting to order.. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 263, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING SEWER VARIANCE DANIEL PAQUIN NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-You have before you a request for a septic variance, Mr. Hatin is unable to be with us, I assume you have had an opportunity to read the letter to the Board, are there any questions relative to that? Anyone from the public here have a concern relative to this variance? Hearing none...How about the Board? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING A SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR DANIEL PAQUIN RESOLUTION NO. 13, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, Daniel Paquin previously filed a request for two (2) variances from certain provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such provision being more specifically those requiring that there be a 150' separation between the seepage pit and a well or suction line, and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance requests on June 17, 1996, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, a) that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variations will not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; b) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variances are granted as the minimum variances which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and c) that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon the applicant that he must also secure the approval of the New York State Department of Health; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health hereby grants the variances to Daniel Paquin allowing the placement of the seepage pit 112' from his well and 145' from his neighbor's well, rather than placing it at the mandated 150' distance(s), on property situated at Lot 38 Country Colony Drive, Town of Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map #: Section 47, Block 1, Lot 1.32. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR RUTH M. AND LINDA SHEARER RESOLUTION NO. 14,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Law, the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury and, as such, is authorized under Chapter 136 of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance to issue variances from such Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Ruth M. and Linda Shearer have applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of Queensbury for three (3) variances from certain standards of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance set forth in Chapter 136, Appendix A, such standards providing as follows: APPENDIX A TABLE I - HORIZONTAL SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM WASTEWATER SOURCES TO STREAM WELL OR LAKE OR WASTEWATER SUCTION WATER PROPERTY LAKE GEORGE SOURCES LINE (a) COURSE(c) DWELLING LINE AND TRIBS. Seepage pit 150' Field and WHEREAS, Ruth M. and Linda Shearer have indicated a desire to place the seepage pit 40' from the existing well on the property rather than placing it at the mandated 150' distance, and 70' and 80' from neighboring property lines rather than the mandated 150' distance, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on July 1st, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, (reasonably accessible to persons with mobility impairment) 742 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for three (3) variances of Ruth M. and Linda Shearer to place the seepage pit 40' from the existing well on the property rather than placing it at the mandated 150' distance and 70' and 80' from the neighboring property lines rather than the mandated 150' distance, on property situated on Sullivan Place (left off Glen Lake Road), Town of Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 38, Block 3, Lot 7, and, at that time, all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized, when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property, to publish and provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required by law, and authorized to mail copies of said Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining neighbors. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 15, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns its meeting and moves into Regular Session of the Town Board. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None TOWN BOARD REGULAR SESSION PUBLIC HEARING INDIAN RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I will open the public hearing on the Indian Ridge Planned Unit Development what we are going to do here is to take both of these at the same time. We will be dealing with the zone change and also the PUD. I might also add that the Board will take no action on the issue this evening but rather will take it under advisement, we will certainly listen and hear your concerns and will act on it at a later date. So, with that I guess I call on Mr. O'Connor to make whatever presentation or whom ever he plans to introduce the subject. ATTORNEY MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Mr. Supervisor and members of the Board for the purpose of your record, I am Michael O'Connor from the Law Firm of Little and O'Connor here representing the developer, with me is the developer Mike Vasiliou and also at the head table at this time is Jim Miller from Miller Associates, the landscape architects who has been helping us design this project and Matt Jones who is representing one of the principal landowners of this particular site. What has been proposed is a rezoning of a parcel of land and then the approval of a PUD or Planned Unit Development Project on this site, that we have here on the screen at the part of the room here. Basically I think everybody is aware of what the project is but again for purposes of the record it is to the north of Aviation Road it is at the end of the terminus of the cuI de sac that now services Farr Lane and is also at the end of the town road known as Fox Farm Road. It is to the west of the property that is owned by the Queensbury School District. Much of the site right now is zoned RR3 and our request to the Board is that it be rezoned SRI5. It is my understanding that the Board has indicated that it will consider perhaps SR20 and we have amended our presentation to show that we fall within those qualifications. Basically what we are talking about is one hundred and eleven, we are talking about one hundred and eleven single family lots, nine multi family lots which would have eighteen duplex units. We are talking about seven point one acres with senior apartments which would have sixty one units we are talking about a one acre site for limited commercial, residential use of a nature of professional office day care or nursery school or health related facility. The site contains one hundred and forty acres of which speaking of developing approximately seventy eight point four five acres. A good portion of the site perhaps some forty to forty five acres in the north west corner is zoned LC42 acres, we are not talking about changing that zone with the proposal. I do not think the zone line actually includes everything that we have shown as Land Conservation. We are showing this particular parcel fifty two point seven six acres which would include the area which has been designated as a wetland and which has been flagged as a wetland by DEC and shown on the survey as a wetland. We also include bank and it would include the area at the top of the bank which we have included in the proposed dedication to the town. The finish if you will, the strip behind any residential lot is fifteen feet, some areas at the top of the bank is a much more, a much deeper parcel that actually goes to the town. Within the site as was shown on this depiction of it we are talking about three different dedications if you will to the town. The first is the land conservation area, fifty two point seven six acres, we are proposing that this be dedicated to the town for land conservation for archaeological research and for passive recreation. We have defined passive recreation as being walking trails, cross country ski trails and bicycles paths, non motorized. This is a definition I think the town has found acceptable at least in one area site that they have looked at and approved for something similar to this nature. We are asking or talking about the town actually owning that parcel of land and having control of that parcel of land. In addition to that we are talking about an eight acre parcel eight point seven nine acre parcel in the internal part of the subdivision, which would be a town park and which would have a trail system, bike path connecting it from one road to another so there could be passage within that trail system. We are talking about that being used for passive recreation and passive recreation being defined as being trail bike system with non motorized bicycles included within this definition. We are also taking about a dedication to the town of two fifty foot access strips, one in this particular area here and one in this particular area here (used pictures of area). Let me say and I say specifically this particular area or that particular area there, I recognize and I think the board recognizes and everybody should recognize those lines maybe juggled a little bit when the actual survey and engineering is done. I had a conversation with Doctor Gee this afternoon about five o'clock or quarter to five and Doctor Gee is Superintendent of Schools for Queensbury School District and he was concerned as to where this access way would fit into the school complex and my answer to him was as it has been to others that have asked that question, it will fit in where he wants it to fit in. If that is the appropriate place and we have another map here that shows the actual configuration of the school development and it shows that access way would be to the back or to the rear or to the north of where the playing field presently exists. If that is where they would like to have that access way that is where it would be, if it needs to be changed a little bit, I think the Town Board, the Planning Board and the school would be able to work that out as we go through this process. That is the third area of dedication and the fourth area of dedication as long as I am talking about dedication probably will be a temporary easement which will connect the first phase immediately to the first access area so that with the first phase and first use of the development people will be able to utilize the access way at least for pedestrian and bicycle path. Part of what we promoted here is that if you look at the area map much of the residential subdivisions on the north side of Aviation Road will be able to have access to the Queensbury School grounds by coming down through the internal road system within their subdivision and with our proposed subdivision without going out onto Aviation Road, we hope to have that as part of the first phase, if we get to this point that is what the Town Board is going to tell us that they want to have done. In general sense, beyond the land conservation area and the park area as I indicated before we are talking about one hundred and eleven single family lots. We have colored coded the lots on here, the lots in the dark green shade are lots that are one half acre or larger. The smallest lot that we have is point four-O and it varies from point four-O to half acre, ...keep real track of the ones that are above a half acre. The average lot size is point four eight three, if you take into effect just the eight point seven nine acres of this park and the hard ground of the top of the bank or to the top of the bank which is approximately another four acres not including the twelve acres down to the wetlands. You take into account just what is at the top of the bank and the hard part and the park and we did what is called a cookie cutter subdivision. Like every other subdivision and probably which many of you people live in the actual lot size would be point six acres, would be well over half acre when you go into that. What we are trying to do is to build a neighborhood, have a subdivision with a identity of it's own, a character of it's own and have that type amenities instead of the simple cookie cutter square box type lots, put as many into the map as you can. The other part of the development as I indicated, part of it is for senior citizen housing. This is the Solomon Heights zoning or the present complex. We're talking about an adjoining lot of seven point one acres and that would accommodate sixty-one additional senior citizen apartments. We've talked to the people that run the present operation. They are anxious to try and expand their present operation and they think that there's a window there for financing. They know that they have a waiting list for people to come into their complex and I don't think there's going to be a great deal of difficulty coming to some agreement with them. What we have proposed there and even back here is that with the approval or at the time of the approval of the first phase from the Planning Board, if it's rezoned we still have to go through an approval process with the Planning Board which is similar to site plan approval. There's a preliminary site plan, there's a final site plan. At the time of the first phase approval or first stage approval I think is the language of the ordinance for PUD's called, we would offer to the town a deed, directly to the town for this parcel or a deed with the grantee blank with the power of attorney for the town to fill in for this parcel and we like wise would have this parcel put in escrow for a period of up to five years for senior citizen housing with the approval of the Town Board. The other feature that I would talk about before we get into some of the other details. The cross hatch lots and there are nine of them are the duplex lots. In that particular use we're talking about one building with two apartments or two duplex units if you will, we would like to call them in-law duplexes and have a zero setback as far as adjoining units. We would like to even have the ability to have easements which would cross the boundary lines so that if from an architectural point of view, it makes more sense to put the left unit upstairs on the right side of the line, it's feasible. We would like to have the option of having internal connection. Right now, by code, if you build a duplex you can't have any internal connections and that's why we refer to it as an in-law unit. If one related family were only, and living at both units, they would have to go out to get to the other unit unless this exception or this provision is provided for in the zoning. We think it's a niche, we think it will fill some particular market. We've seen other duplexes out there and they do not really seem to have a market as a standard clear. When we've gone through this site, we've looked at many, many different things. We think that we have listened and this box is really full of it, of what we've looked at as we've gone through. We did an archeological study, an actual on ground study to see if there were any archeological finds or sites that needed to be preserved. The few areas that were located were on the top of the bank and we have a sign off letter from the state with their preferred method of treatment. We are avoiding the site. We're simply putting it outside of our site. We're bringing it in the land conservation area and will not disturb it. If later the town wants to get involved with some archeological research or somebody else wants to get involved, we've indicated that it can't be conducted, only with Town Board approval. We have had numerous soil studies. There has been concern about the wetlands and the concerns would be probably captioned in two different areas. One, was whether there would be any subsurface infiltration to the wetland. We actually went out and did deep soil tests. Typically you go out with a standard backhoe when you're doing a subdivision, you dig as deep as the arm of a good size backhoe will dig and you say that at sixteen feet or twenty feet, there is no ground water. We've gone a little bit further then that. We've actually done three wells on this particular site to give us actual groundwater. Those three sites give us a groundwater at sixty feet. So, there really is not going to be a great deal of threat, whatever is there as far as going down into groundwater. Besides that, we found out an interesting fact which I think amazed myself, Jim Miller and some others even on the team. The subsurface water here does not go into the wetlands. The subsurface water travels south easterly toward Halfway Brook and we have a report from Dente Engineering that based upon the three wells that were done, based upon the elevation of the groundwater at the wetland, he tells us that the water flows from the site away from the wetland down to halfway brook. The other area of concern was surface runoff and how we have handled that is that we have agreed to ditch if you will, the roads. We will, this, subject to final approval designed by the Superintendent of Highways but the engineering concept and we have submitted a drainage plan, that Tom Nace who is here has prepared, is that the lots will flow to the road and then will be collected in a drainage swale on the side of the road and go to infiltration systems, drywells and then into the ground. On the area that adjoins the wetland, we have said that we will pick up all of the lots that are disturbed, all the lot surfaces that are disturbed during construction. We will pick up the front yards of these lots, the side and backyards will run to a swale that will run along the back area of the construction and then along the side of the lots out to the road. So, there's not going to be any surface infiltration from the lots or from the development to the wetland area. We also took a look at whether or not the site had a habitat, and these are all questions that people have asked because of adjoining developments or something that they've seen and we have a sign off letter, if you will from DEC from a wildlife biologist indicating that there is no protected habitat for species on this particular site. One time apparently there was and I think it's shown right here, was a habitat for Karner Blue Butterflies but it is not there at this point. We have talked to the people that are involved with the senior citizen housing and we have encouraged them and they have agreed to talk to the town and talk to DEC about trying to do something to re-establish what was one time a habitat even though there is none there and that is something that they are going to try to do along this edge of what is the access way to the school. We have also done a traffic study and the traffic study shows that there will be some impact. Transportation Concepts did the traffic study, Dennis O'Malley is here this evening from Transportation Concepts to try and answer any questions that you have of him. My understanding of the traffic study is that it shows only two down grades if you will and down grades are not significant and this traffic study is not based upon fiction if you will. It's the actual background traffic that is there now. It is computed with a two percent annual growth rate. It's computed at the full built out of this subdivision and this subdivision is not going to appear over night. We have a phasing plan that we've submitted, we're talking five to six, seven years to build. We have six phases I believe that are shown on the phasing plan and the senior citizens complex is considered the seventh phase although we don't really know the time table of that. It would depend upon funding and sponsorship and selection of sponsorship by the Town Board. They've taken into affect everything that exists except for the improvements that the town has undertaken right now in conjunction with the widening of the bridge across the Northway or in the widening of the road passed the front of Queensbury School. That has not been imputed into our study. We are the worse case scenario in our traffic study. We have done in the traffic study some analysis of what some solutions might be. Weare not suggesting any of those solutions but typically the town did to us what it does to others when we have something on the agenda, they asked us to pay for the cost and expense of a study and see what possibilities or alternatives there might be. I don't know where everybody is from here but we are not, as part of this application proposing the changing or the configuration of the intersection of Dixon and Aviation. We've shown the town perhaps what that might be or what it might not be but the town actually has it's own engineering firm at this point, I think studying from the end of the existing widening of Aviation Road out to Potter Road to see what they think would be a proposal. We have not suggested that traffic be diverted to any other subdivision because of this particular project. There are some niceties beyond what I've talked about within the subdivision. As I may have said or not, the main entrance to it would be off ofFarr Lane which is right there. The secondary access will be off of Fox Farm Road right here. This will be one way traffic and it will be one way in. The existing housing on Fox Farm Road will not be affected by traffic from this subdivision. Their traffic flow will not be affected or be changed because the traffic from the subdivision will not go out Fox Farm Road, at least as we proposed it. I've heard some people project to that think that Fox Farm should be two way. But we have said that we can live with one way and we're will to do that. In addition to the out right grant to the town for those two parcels within the subdivision we're talking about no cut areas. There are four no cut areas shown on the map and basically these no cut areas adjoin other properties. There's a no cut area up in this area here of one point four acres. This adjoins the residents of Richard Collins. We have a no cut area in the two corners that adjoin the school property and we have no cut area behind these lots in the subdivision. The no cut areas will indicate that there will be no removal of vegetation, there will be no cutting of trees. It will be basically something to preserve the separateness from our subdivision with those other properties, something that somebody will not be able to violate. We are proposing that it's a restricted covenant, it's part of the development agreement, it can be enforced by the town, it can be enforced by adjoining lot owners within or without the subdivision so that there's no question that people will be able to enforce that. In addition to that, we have talked about cutting restrictions along the top of the bank. We're talking about a, I withdraw that. Along the back of the lots at the top of the bank. Some of these people have a fifteen foot buffer, some have as much as a hundred foot buffer. So, in addition to whatever the buffer is as shown here, internally within the lot we're talking about a cutting restriction of at least forty feet. On that area we're talking about no cutting of any trees three inches or more in diameter to preserve if you will the forest area. So, in all probability this site and this subdivision will not be visible to anyone if you're on the other side of the wetland looking over. On the other lots throughout the subdivision we are talking about a cutting restriction of twenty feet at the rear of each lot. I don't know how concerned you are of internal setbacks of our proposal, on the residential front setback ifforty feet minimum, side ten, and rear twenty. In the commercial we're talking forty front, side twenty, rear thirty. We're talking about permeable reservation of at least thirty percent probably with many of the lots because of restrictions that we're putting on as far as side lines and setbacks and the no cut area, it's probably going to be greater then that. We're talking about driveway turning areas, all lots, residential or commercial lots shall at that time of initial construction have constructed a turning area on the lot so the vehicles exiting from ... on the lots may be turned on the driveway surface and driven onto the road. We're talking about septic areas or septic systems on the lots seventy through eighty-seven, the area adjoins the land conservation area all being in the front of the property and we've got a separate map, this is a sketch of the smallest lot that adjoins the land conservation area. If you take a look at this and see the layout and see the distances that we're talking about, this septic system on this lot will be some three hundred and forty- five feet from the edge of the wetland. Typically you are required to have a hundred foot setback from a waterway. This is three times, almost three and a halftimes that. If you take a look and I have purposely have tried to take a high road, if you take a look at some of the other lots that adjoin the wetland on the other side, their total lot from road to wetland is a hundred and fifty feet. So, if you take a look at their lot, their house and septic system is some place from the top of the bank to the wetland when you try and compare their wetland and our impact. We really think that we've done a decent job as far as any potential impacts. On this map we have shown you two lots, both with side loaded garages, both showing the setbacks that we talked about, showing the septic system and whatnot. This lot here is the lot I believe that we've shown in the other mapping. This lot here also shows how we will swale the yard and the drainage to the front yard. This is one of the smaller lots which is over by the school property and it was shown just to show you how we would, how we can accommodate a decent size house on there and at the same time meet the standards that we have set for ourself. Many people have asked us what type housing we will be building and what would be the sale price of those houses within this. Basically, the price range would be from a hundred and ten thousand to a hundred and sixty thousand. We're talking fourteen hundred and fifty square feet of living space not including garages and we're talking about every home having a two car garage in addition to that fourteen hundred and fifty square feet. Probably a minimum of four hundred something for a garage so you're into eighteen hundred square feet if you include the garage as far as type housing. We've had some specific comment of the nature of how dare we look at three acre zoning and propose a subdivision which has an average lot size of point four eight acres or which has with the park land, point six eight acre a lot size and that's basically a problem as to how the site was looked at in 1988. If you took a look at the area map and it's interesting to note that when the adjoining site was developed, I think on a few of the lots if I recognize, I won't recognize the names, I know where, I think it's lots right here that join. The actual zoning is shown with their lot the SR20 and this property or a line going through their lots also showed that they had multi family residential five thousand square foot zoning. This property was until 1988 zoned for one residential unit per every five thousand square feet. What we're talking about is much less dense then that. Basically the best that we can tell is that there was perhaps a question of interpretation in 1988. Tom, do you want to try and address that and talk about the soils? Mr. Tom Nace-For the record my name is Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering. Back in 88' the committees that worked on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Queensbury took what is normally used for that purpose which are the United States Soil Conservation Service maps and used those maps and the SCS Soils Interpretation to sort of map out and broad brush basis what areas of the Town were suitable and not suitable for development and what type of developments, how dense whether it was suitable for twenty thousand square feet or three acres or ten acres. In doing that this particular area of this map is Hinckley soils which has a wide range of qualities anywhere from gravel pits to some relatively fine to medium sands. The SCS soil mapping was done generally for agricultural purposes so when they got into areas that were not intensively used for agricultural purposes they did not really care exactly how explicit they were and they mapped them with a rather broad brush. We have done over the years many soils tests on this piece of property we have done a considerable number of tests pits to classify the soils we have done the soil borings that went down to the ground water at sixty feet. We have also done percolation tests to find out how rapidly the water goes through the soil. As a measure of what is good and what is not good for home septic systems the Health Department says that anything faster than a percolation rate of one minute per inch could require alternative methods of treatment prior to using standard septic systems. What this is generally meant to mean is that with soil faster than one minute you should consider bringing in some fill to construct you septic system in and that fill should have a percolation rates that are slower than one minute per inch, generally in the range of five to ten minutes per inch for that fill material so that a lot of treatment takes place in that small amount of fill that you bring in. All of the soils on our site have percolation rates in the range of one and a quarter minute to two and a quarter minutes per inch. That is ideal for septic systems even on lots smaller than what we are proposing. Half acre lots, twenty thousand square foot lots, the Health Department has no restrictions if the percolation rates are in that range. Something to consider, it is the Health Department that has set that one minute standard in consideration of the fact that they also permit septic systems to be located so that the bottom of the septic system is as close as two feet to the seasonal high ground water. So, there would only be two feet of soil for the septic leachate to go through before it hits ground water. We have in this site sixty feet to go through so there is a lot more treatment that can take place within that added depth. Attorney O'Connor-1 answered questions, or in general terms traffic. Dennis, would you give us just a short dissertation on the difference before and after development particularly the level of services of a couple of intersections that your study shows that there would be a change in the level of service? Mr. Dennis O'Malley-For the record my name is Dennis O'Malley, I work for the firm Transportation Concepts. Our firm was asked to take a look at the traffic impacts of this project and evaluate the operation along Aviation Road at the, and at the intersections of which the site traffic would be traveling through. In sort of a Readers Digest version I will try to give you a synopsis of what we do and how we do it, and what essentially we found. I know everyone here drives a car and has a experience of traveling on Aviation Road and some experience of what they perceive as problems along Aviation Road. But, very simply what we have done is we have taken a look at the existing traffic along Aviation Road and that is done simply by counting cars. We have people that go to the intersections that we are looking at and sit there and count cars during the morning and afternoon peak hours, that is usually from four to six in the afternoon and seven to nine in the morning. We also get some data from other sources such as the Department of Transportation, the Town of Queensbury other consultants who may be doing work in the area in order to make some predictions for how much traffic is going to be there in the future. Mike made reference to some numbers about two percent per year annual growth and I will give you some sense about what that really means. That number is used in order to take into account some increases in the number of motor vehicles that are expected to travel along Aviation Road in the future. It has nothing to do with any site development which may occur whether it is residential or retail or commercial that says that over periods of time families generally have more cars. You may have had that experience within your own family, when children become driving age, have a car going to high school or college, more trips are made, more vehicles are there and that is what that two percent per year is. It is looked at and it is determined simply by going back and looking at traffic eight or ten years ago and making some essence well what happened in that eight to ten years period and then making some predictions for the next eight to ten years. Now, within this particular study we got the growth rates from DOT Region One Planning who use that growth rate for the Exit nineteen bridge. So, we thought we had at least a reliable source for using the two percent growth rate over a period of time. Now, the traffic itself that's generated by the site is estimated simply by looking at the type of proposal, type of project and we have residential, two particular types of residential one of which is single family duplex in which we have people who are living there are expecting to go to work in the morning and come home from work in the afternoon and do the things that families normally do. They're going to go out and shop. They may take the kids to little league, school functions, whatever it is and there is a book that we use called the trip generation report which essentially is developed by having traffic people across the country go and count these same types of land uses and count the number of cars that are generated by subdivisions all across the country, divided by the number of units and coming up with what they call a rate. The number of trips expected to be made during a peak hour by a land use of this type. In fact one of the things that we're concerned about is, if we have this information on a national basis, how applicable is it to local government such as the Town of Queensbury or the Glens Falls area. Well studies we have done in the capital district and in this area have confirmed our information from the trip generation. Trip rates in this area are fairly close within a couple of tenths of a trip, of what we see on a national basis. So, we thought we had a good rational for being able to estimate the amount of traffic. Now, as I said we have duplex and single families so we can generate the number of trips. In the morning it tends to be about one trip per household during the peak hour. That's not saying there's one trip made necessarily in a period, it's just saying the peak hour traffic along the adjacent street, each home on average generated one trip. It may be an exiting trip that is going away from home or maybe a trip coming in. In the afternoon it's a little higher and I think that also reflects there's more activity done in the afternoon. You get home from work, you may go out to McDonald's, you may have to go to functions as I mentioned and that's more like one point three, one point three trips per household. Senior housing on the other hand is a much lower generator of traffic during peak hours. This is simply due to the fact that seniors aren't required to travel during peak hours ... In fact I think if you talk to most people who have retired, they don't want to travel during the afternoon peak hour and knowing Aviation Road if I were a senior and didn't have to travel between seven and nine and four to six in the morning and afternoon, I wouldn't do it and that's reflected in the trip rates. They are fairly low. In fact the amount of traffic generated by the senior portion of this project is expected to be fairly low, in the order of twelve percent in the morning and a little bit lower in the afternoon. Now, where do we expect this traffic to go? Well again, it's pretty practical for people that are living in homes and living in duplexes when they go to work, they're going to go to their place of employment. Now, when they come home, they come back from their place of employment and if you look at the two roads servicing the site, Aviation Road and Dixon Road are the two primary highways which carry traffic away from and to the site. So, we expect about ninety percent of the traffic, I think about sixty-five percent travel on Aviation Road towards Glens Falls or Queensbury and twenty-five percent travel down Dixon Road and the reverse of that happens in the afternoon. Since again, most trips made during the afternoon peak hour which is known to be between four thirty and five thirty and in the morning from seven thirty to eight thirty, is going to work and coming home from work. Obviously after that, there's also trips made to Aviation Mall or one of the retail centers and so forth. So, we made an estimate and we can confirm that by actually seeing where people are traveling along Aviation Road. So, if we're looking at this site, here's Aviation Road, the Exit 19 bridge, the Queensbury High School, we expect the bulk of traffic and remember under this proposal, we were having the traffic come out Farr Lane. The only traffic entering this site will be permitted through both Fox Farm Road and Farr Lane. So we expected the bulk of traffic to come out to Farr Lane and essentially turn left and go down Aviation Road or make that angular left and go down Dixon Road. Well trying to evaluate how's the operation of the intersection. Well, unfortunately I think some times people are confused we thought we had simple terms as traffic people, in order to get someone to compare a grading system that you're all familiar with and so they assigned letter grades to traffic operations. And like in school if you get an A, it's a pretty good operation. If you get an F, it's a very bad operation. If you get an A in school it's pretty good, if you get an F or an E, your parents probably weren't happy and I know I'm not happy as a parent when my children come home with poor grades but that's essentially the system. Unfortunately the system isn't uniformly applied to all traffic control strategies. What we have here a stop sign, we call it a signalized intersection control and what that's really saying is, you can well imagine along Aviation Road we've got a stop sign on Farr Lane, people traveling along Aviation Road aren't going to stop at all. There's nothing there controlling that traffic except the guy in front of you. If he's traveling a little slower, you'll travel a little slower but generally people along Aviation Road travel at whatever the prevailing pace is along there. As Aviation Road becomes more congested and we counted about eight hundred cars an hour along Aviation Road during the peak hour, we could expect the traffic speeds will drop. If you come out ofFarr Lane at a stop sign, the movements you make out ofFarr Lane are going to be controlled by how much traffic is crossing in front of you. If you're making a right turn, you've only got people coming from your left to worry about. If you're going straight, you've got two lanes but you can go faster across a road then you can coming out and turning left. Left is the most restrictive of all movements because not only are you crossing two lanes but you also have to accelerate and try to get out of the way of the guys coming from your right. So, in this analysis we look at and what transportation professionals have done is develop a system which they call reserve capacity. So, if we had no traffic at an unsignalized intersection and drove by a stop sign, how many cars could you get through that intersection in an hour. That number tends to be something around fifteen to sixteen hundred vehicles an hour. As volume goes up, as volume goes up alright, the capacity of that system goes down. In other words, how many more cars can you get in the system, that goes down. Alright, we have eight hundred cars that we've counted along Aviation Road during the peak hour and it tends to be about the same in the morning and the afternoon. The reverse direction is different, going in towards Glens Falls in the morning, coming out from Glens Falls in the afternoon. Currently at Farr Lane, I think there are eleven vehicles right now that were counted at the time we did the count coming out ofFarr Lane. I think there were three rights, three straights and five people turned left. So, you can well imagine it's not very difficult for that volume of traffic to receive some space on Aviation Road in which to come out. You could make any of those movements. This site will add, subtract obviously to their movement, having all traffic exit from that site. In fact, I think in the morning, we'll add something in the order of a magnitude of about eighty vehicles. Sixty, somewhere between sixty and seventy vehicles. In the morning, it was about eighty-one. There will be about eighty-one additional vehicles that would be expected to come out ofFarr Lane and in the afternoon it would be about fifty-eight and that reflects people going to work in the morning and coming home in the afternoon. UNKNOWN-When did you take your, when did you take eight hundred cars, at what point? MR. O'MALLEY-At what point? Right at the intersection. UNKNOWN-Of? MR. O'MALLEY-Farr Lane and Aviation Road, and Potter and Fox Farm Road and Aviation Road. UNKNOWN-So that doesn't include all the people coming out of Midnight that are coming up from Glens Falls? MR. O'MALLEy-It includes anyone who passed, who crossed that point at the time of the count. People counted at this intersection and this intersection. We counted all movements, anyone who came out of Dixon Road, Farr Lane, Fox Farm, Potter Road and traffic going along Aviation Road both east and west and it was counted for a two hour period. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I think what we would rather do is to have the presentation, then let's take questions at the end. MR. O'MALLEY-Okay. UNKNOWN-What time did you count them? MR. O'MALLEY -Seven to nine in the morning, four to six in the afternoon. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I don't mean to cut Mr. O'Malley short okay but there's a proper way of doing this, it's not to interject, intercept somebody or interrupt somebody but allow the presentation to go and then if you have questions, the proper procedure I think is to proceed with questions. You go through the chair, go through the Supervisor and to us and I'm not trying to run the meeting but I don't want this to turn into something that we don't perhaps have reasonable records of and a point to go forward with. MR. O'MALLEY-Alright, I don't have much left. So we said in the morning we're anticipating about eighty-one more trips coming out ofFarr Lane and that's broken down, eighty-one total, rights, throughs, and lefts and then in the afternoon there were fifty-eight. That obviously draws on that reserve capacity that I talked about at the intersection and based on this letter grade, what we said was we evaluate the intersection using the terminology and the procedures that transportation professionals use, basically the lefts and the throughs coming out of Farr Lane right now are operating at what they call a level of service D which essentially reflective of the fact that someone trying to come out and getting onto Aviation Road is going to wait a while. The volume of traffic on there, eight hundred vehicles an hour will present times in which people may have to wait some period of time in order to get out and turn left or go straight. That number will be increased, we draw on that reserve capacity and the calculation indicate that during the morning and I think and in the afternoon, that level of service grade drops from D to E at this particular intersection. All the other movements on both Fox Farm and Potter and the other movements along Dixon Road and Aviation Road remain the same. At the request of the town we were asked to look at some alternatives in trying to minimize the impact at this intersection. As Mike indicated before, we're not proposing any of these alternatives. We were asked to look at them and make some comments about them and they were basically three fold I think. The first one was, to make a portion of Dixon Road one way somewhere between this particular intersection and Aviation Road so that the traffic could only go in at Dixon. Anyone coming up Dixon Road would be forced to then migrate through this residential subdivision to get to Aviation Road. The second alternative was similar in that this, the movements at this intersection would be controlled and restricted by geometric changes at the intersection and again would only have rights and again, lefts coming out or going in would be forced to go through the subdivision. In our opinion, those are unacceptable because I think it's just taking a problem and relocating it. This subdivision would be impacted by traffic along Dixon Road that is currently not impacted by it. We don't believe that's the spot that any traffic along Dixon Road should be forced to go into and we have not endorsed this particular approach but were asked to look at them to see what the impacts were. The third was to look at a geometric change at this intersection. You know it's kind of an angular intersection right now and this is one that I think in the long term probably has more promise in the fact that if you could turn Dixon Road slightly and bring it into a more right angle to Aviation Road and then probably look at it with some kind of a combination of additional control with Farr Lane, that probably has more promise. You know we've looked at it, the unfortunate thing is due to some properties which are located at the intersection and in order to accomplish it, it would probably require a taking of some property in order to build it in conformance with some design standards. But we think over the long term, it's something that the town ought to entertain and should pursue if it's possible. There are a couple of other things that are also going on that at the time we did this analysis, we're not included as Mike indicated. The first is, the town currently has a project to widen Aviation Road from the end of the improvements of the Exit 19 bridge down towards Potter Road and part of that improvement is the inclusion of a traffic signal at a consolidated driveway entrance at the Queensbury High School. Obviously making a third lane along Aviation Road gives some opportunity for people who are turning left to not sit in traffic, they're not going to impose a restriction on people who want to go straight along Aviation Road, they can get out of the traffic stream, turn left when the opportunity presents itself and that's a betterment. The second factor is, the traffic signal at the High School will also do a thing, will provide one convenience for people at intersections down stream and that is, when it turns red, it provides opportunities for people at the High School, it will stop traffic traveling westbound on Aviation Road and create some spaces if you will along Aviation Road so that there maybe more opportunities for people at Farr Lane to get out onto Aviation Road. We looked at the possibility of providing a traffic signal at Farr Lane and Dixon Road and Aviation Road. New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law has requirements for the installation of traffic signals. There are a couple of factors. Number one is, you must meet this warrant as part of the vehicle and traffic law in New York State. We tried to look at an analysis over a period of time to see if that warrant would be met based on volume and we did not find a volume warrant for a traffic signal at that location, it wasn't met. The second factor is, it has to do with Aviation Road as an important link between the town and Route 9 and as you all know from your own experiences the more traffic signals you put along an arterial, the less efficient the road system operates. The more you stop, the less the ability of the road to provide capacity for the system and I think the town is in a program right now which is a good program to consolidate driveways where possible along those like Aviation Road and make some intelligent decisions about where appropriate traffic control made be as part of a long term solution to the problems along Aviation Road. So, at least at this point in time we have not made a recommendation for a traffic signal at this location. That's essentially our analysis of the intersection and the project. Mike? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, for purposes of the record, one thing I didn't talk about which I think we should, which is one of the considerations of perhaps community benefit, is the provision of the access ways to the school property for purposes of access, potentially for emergency purposes for the school. As I and maybe I have, I lost track of where I was but we had indicated that there are two access ways here and here. We're talking about improving this access way immediately. We're talking about a break away locked gate at the property line between the school property and the development site. We had talked about various types of improvement. Basically we are willing to build that access way in what ever manner the Town Board dictates, that they want us to with the Planning Board or with the School authorities and the same thing with the location. Apparently some of the newspaper reports have gotten it down to simply being a bike trail or bike connection and that's not the intent. Whatever we are told to do is what we will do in that particular way. I'd like to thank you for your patience. I would like to thank staff and everyone else who has given us input and I say this, giving us positive input as to how we can improve this project. I think we've tried to listen to people. We're still listening. We have some very favorable comments as to the nature of the character of the development that we're trying to provide for the town. If you have questions, we'll try to answer you as the chair directs in the manner that the Supervisor thinks is appropriate. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Thank you very much for the presentation. By all means we would hope that before you leave here tonight all of your questions will be answered. So I believe at this time, we'll open the public hearing again and ask if there's anyone here that would like to come to the mic. Give us your name for the record and ask whatever questions or whatever concerns you may have. So, it's open season. Who wants to be first? Yes sir, this gentleman on my left. MR. MARK HOFFMAN-My name is Mark Hoffman, I live at 32 Fox Hollow Lane. First of all I would like to apologize for the length of my presentation. I'll try and be as concise as possible. I do feel this is an important issue which is multi faceted and needs appropriate and careful consideration. I wanted to address the traffic issues. You know, I was thinking about this earlier today and I've read the traffic study in detail and I intended to speak about it to some degree. I think there is a danger sometime though that, sometimes we get bogged down into minute details and perhaps we lose perspective over the overall picture of what is happening. I think, I was thinking to myself whether the developer to assert that putting in a hundred and ninety units emptying into an exit, entrance way that already on an overly stressed intersection, for the developer to assert that there is no significant traffic impact of that is like a tobacco company saying that there is no significant addiction associated with cigarettes. I really feel that it flies in the face of common sense. Now, with respect to the traffic study, specifically there are numerous assumptions in the traffic study of uncertain validity which are used in arriving at projected levels of service. However, even assuming the accuracy of these assumptions the developers traffic consultants conclusion that acceptable levels of service will be present after completion of the project is not supported by their own data. In the traffic study table 3.3 on page seven it demonstrates that Dixon Road north bound in the morning peak hour will go from level of service D to level of service E, Farr Lane South bound will go from level of service D to level of service E. Farr Lane south bound in the evening will go from level of service E. to level of service D. References of change from Warren County Department of Public works demonstrates that the level of service D indicates long traffic delays and level of service E indicates very long traffic delays, and that is specifically with reference to the unsignalized traffic intersection. These descriptions also assume good weather conditions which as we know is not always the case in Queensbury, despite our heroic efforts of our highway department. Now, at the Planning Board meeting the consultant made some comment to the effect that all this is relative and that if we were living in New York City nobody would be complaining about that, I do not think that is a serious response to the traffic issues that have been raised. With regard to the Aviation Road corner of Fox Farm intersection it currently shows that Fox Farm level of services at E during the morning peak and D at the evening peak. The developer states that this intersection will remain at these poor levels of service rather than deteriorating further presumably because the development traffic will be limited only to entering vehicles. How this restriction will be enforced is left to the imagination. With level of service deteriorating at the Farr Lane intersection especially if this is addressed with a traffic light, there will surely be incentive for cars to attempt exit via Fox Farm Road. Does the county wish to spend it's law enforcement resources on policing a one way entrance to a residential development? Will there be continued political pressure to eliminate this one way designation as is often the case? Will we have to fight this battle again and again? The study assumes that a community building will be used only by residents of the development. One possible use for this community building was a medical clinic. I can tell you as a Physician that there's no way a full time medical clinic will be able to function and survive purely based on the population of people in that neighborhood. The study assumes the background increase in traffic of two percent per year based on demographic estimates as was described relating to changes in age and so forth and more people in the family driving. However to ignore the possibility of increased development is, I don't think realistic in terms of estimating background growth. Specifically, if, one of the things that allows predictability in such estimates is the regulation of growth through zoning and if the town doesn't take it's zoning ordinance seriously growth could easily exceed such estimates. If this developer's rezoning request is granted, why would we not grant the same benefit to the next developer that comes along? The developer's consultant has offered a number of possible remedies to the traffic problem at the Farr Lane, Dixon and Aviation intersection. He claims that these remedies would need to be addressed with or without development. However, I've already demonstrated that the development clearly changes the level of service from acceptable or suboptimal levels to clearly inadequate levels and would change the need for such remedies from optional to essential. I would also comment, apparently tonight, we're told that they're not really serious about some of these solutions that they're proposed and that they're backing away from these recommendations. The fact of the matter is that they were made as potential solutions to the traffic problems that were raised and I don't think that's responsible at this point to just back away from it and say that we don't, we don't really believe any of these recommendations, particularly since not to follow through with any of them would allow the deterioration of traffic patterns that have already been described. Among the possible solutions suggested by the developer's consultant include a traffic light at the Aviation, Dixon, Farr Lane intersection. A light is already planned for the new Queensbury School entrance. This would make the second new traffic light on Aviation within one half mile. Although this potentially would keep the side road approaches at acceptable levels of service, traffic on Aviation would deteriorate from a current level of service A to at least level of service C as one might expect with the institution of traffic signals. The cost of such an intervention is significant and is not limited to the initial capital costs, there are also to long term maintenance, repair and enforcement. Additional noise and pollution could be expected as a result of the frequent stopping and starting of automobiles. Also, human nature being what it is, people will attempt to bypass traffic lights by utilizing side streets and alternate routes which have previously been relatively protected from traffic. Another alternative discussed with the rerouting of approximately twelve hundred cars per day from Dixon to Aviation to existing residential streets, something that will threaten quality of life for residents of those potential connector streets and threaten the safety of children in those neighborhoods. Another suggested solution involves purchasing land likely through eminent domain to reroute the approach of Dixon to Aviation. Aside from the obvious cost associated with this and displacement of current residents and businesses, no data has been provided proving that this would be a long term solution to this problem. There has been some talk about widening Aviation Road beyond what is currently being undertaken by the school entrance. There has been no data that this would in any way solve the traffic problems at these intersections and could make them worse by increasing vehicles speed on Aviation and encouraging more traffic. Can a way be devised to handle the increased traffic and congestion from this development? Probably yes with enough money and disruption of people's lives, a relatively efficient way can probably be found to move people into and out of this development to then surrounding neighborhoods but the end result will be a different community then the one we have come to enjoy. A more crowded, urbanized and noisier and more polluted neighborhood. Do we really want the Quaker Road type of solution, turning a pleasant residential street into a major arterial with four or potentially more lanes? Okay, one of the reasons why Queensbury has been a considered an attractive place to live is because of the Queensbury School system. I understand that the developer has obtained a statement from the Superintendent of Schools that there is no way to predict the impact of this project on the Queensbury School district. I've discussed this with the president of the Queensbury School Board and certain facts needs to be brought to attention. First, the middle and high school is currently operating at capacity and the elementary school is operating above capacity. Two, it is certainly desirable to avoid a major building project because of the obvious cost associated with this but it is not certain at this time whether it will be possible to avoid such a building program. Three, an architectural firm has been engaged to analyze the building needs of the district and propose possible solutions. Four, there is a preference for any additional building to take place on current school property. In order to have access to buildable land, consideration may be given to removing little league fields from school property. What is the relevance of all this to the rezoning issue today? First, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which way a hundred and thirty additional families is going to tip the scales as far as potential building project for the school district. Can I say that a hundred percent that this development is going to make the difference? No, I can't but we have to use some common sense in looking at this. Second, as a volunteer soccer coach for Queensbury Recreation Department for many years, I can tell you that the school grounds served many community needs other then education and that there are many times that every square foot of school property is used for recreational and community activity. We've come to depend on school to meet many of our needs for open space but we may soon outgrow this space. We need to enforce our zoning ordinances to allow for controlled growth and protection of open space. To do otherwise is to betray the public trust, make long term planning for our public institutions impossible and set dangerous precedents for an unplanned metropolis which will no longer be a desirable place to live and to go to school. What is the justification for all this mess being forced on our community? I note that the developer is backing away now from the term affordable housing. It would appear that the price range of eighty thousand for a duplex and a hundred and ten to a hundred sixty thousand plus for single family homes, is no different then that offered through out the town. If not enough town residents can afford homes, it's likely not due to a lack of, I'm sorry, it is likely due to a lack of economical opportunities rather then to a lack of homes in this price range. Further, we have no reason to think that such homes would be bought by local residents rather then by people living in the capital district or else where. What about this land that's being donated to the town? Most of it is undevelopable due to wetlands and steep incline. Most of that land, I mean the wetland obviously is unbuildable which they're donating to the town. The green area between the back row of houses and that wetland is mostly on a steep incline and would not be convenient for housing development. I believe the figure that I've heard in terms of developable land that is being considered for donation to the town is approximately six percent of total area. Now while it's nice that this other area in between homes there is being considered for donation to the town, you know I think it's nice for the people that are living there that they're going to have their backyards enlarged and at the same time taken off the tax rolls however I don't see that as a serious donation to the town that the public at large can utilize for recreation or open space purposes. In terms of senior housing, I'm more then happy to back ground on senior housing tomorrow. I don't think there's any serious objections to senior housing. I would point out that there are a number of other senior housing projects which have gone up in town or are proposed and no such special zoning favors related to the remainder of this project have been requested by other developers that are interested in putting up senior housing. The argument has been made that other homes have been built in Queensbury with equal or greater density then that proposed for Indian Ridge. In addition, we heard tonight about some question about whether other homes of septic systems that are closer to the wetlands and so forth. I really feel that this is irrelevant. What has been built in the passed we can't do anything about at this point. However, I would point out that what was considered appropriate for 1960, 1970 or even 1980 is not necessarily appropriate for 1996. When the town had a population often thousand, fifteen thousand or twenty thousand it could afford to be more lax in zoning enforcement then when it has a population of thirty or forty plus thousand. Beyond a certain point, small increases in density can produce major challenges to infrastructure, transportation, environmental problems and the aesthetic character of the community. Open space, once taken for granted is now at a premium. This development fulfills neither the criteria for rezoning nor for a PUD and further more it subverts the intent of the PUD process by seeking zoning changes way beyond the bonuses that might be granted under a PUD. It is not in the public interest and the Town Board would be well within it's authority to reject the rezoning and PUD proposals tonight. I understand that there has been some concern among some Town Board members as to the possibility of a lawsuit by the developer in the event of the rezoning, in the event the rezoning proposal is rejected. Our counsel has indicated that there's no legal basis for a successful suit by the developer in this instance. Please keep in mind also that the current owners of the land for this development knew what the zoning was when they bought and that the neighboring residents also knew what the zoning was in many cases and thought they were being protected by that zoning. You may notice that the petition presented tonight which will subsequently be presented by another citizen in reference to the Indian Ridge Development contains signatures from all over Queensbury. I was impressed with the degree of interest and concern shown by residents from outside the immediate neighborhood. To some extent this reflects the extent to which people identify with the Queensbury School as an important community central for all residents. In addition, there was no mistaking the sense of concern about this zoning issue. There is increase in recognition that if it can happen in one neighborhood, it can happen in any neighborhood. There is also a deep sense of frustration with the planning process and a legitimate concern that the little guy who wants to put a deck on the back of his house gets raked over the coals while the big developer with fancy lawyers and consultants get's to...(applaud) SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I would like to, I understand your applause very well but if you would just hold the applause please until later on, we do have a number of folks here that do want to speak and it's going to eat up our time and I've been very embarrassed to have to shut it off earlier. So, please hold your applause until after each person has had their chance. Thank you. MR. HOFFMAN-I'm almost done. Finally, I want to emphatically state that I'm not opposed to development but favor controlled development which takes into account legitimate community planning needs. Mr. O'Connor appears to be throwing some crumbs to his opponents in the hopes of appearing conciliatory and avoiding serious compromise on the key environmental issues at stake. That's to his credit, he's a skillful attorney and negotiator. However, I would hope that the Town Board will take a firm position requiring that any compromise be meaningful, substitive, and involve a substantial reduction in the total number of units constructed and a substantial increase in undeveloped common area preferably along the more environmental sensitive areas and in a pattern that can be protected and enjoyed by the community at large. Such compromise should not be hastily or sloppily constructed but should allow for careful consideration of the issues at hand. In order to achieve this, the board must be able to just say no to a bad proposal. If the Town Board finds itself unable to reject the zoning and PUD before tonight it should at the very least require a full draft environmental impact statement including a scoping session to allow for public input on determining the issues to be addressed. However, I would emphasis I believe the correct decision is to reject the zoning and PUD proposals which are being submitted for approval. I recognize that the developers are just doing their job which is to make as big as profit as they can building houses. However, that's not your job. Your job is to protect the interest of Queensbury's residents and to make it the best town it can possibly be, to decide what Queensbury should look like and feel like in the next century for us, our children and grandchildren. Don't let this opportunity slip away. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- Thank you. I had some one right here, just a couple of rows up who started to come up earlier. Yes, please. MS. MARIANNE RAFFLE-Good evening, my name is Marianne Raffle and I live on Helen Drive in the Evergreen Development. I don't mean to sound disrespectful but I was wondering if any of the board members know of any current or new businesses coming into the area which will support the housing? I think you would be hard pressed to go down any road in Queensbury and can not find a for sale sign. I see the prices of our neighborhood dropping and I think a development with a hundred and ten more houses in the same price range just hurting the real estate market even more. And I also have a concern about the school system. My children are in it. I know that this next year there will be fifty new kindergartners slated to enter which is forty more then has ever been added in a school year in the last ten years. This is without any new families moving into the area. This is going to force the school district to build and grown bigger and we're going to lose the little league fields and the soccer fields and those are all the things make the residents, the kids of Queensbury turn out as well as they have in the past. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. MS. DEBBIE COLLIN-My name is Debbie Collin and I live at 16 Fox Farm Road. I'm just resubmitting a letter that I submitted to you, to Connie on March 4th and I'll just read it. This letter is a follow up to our conversation on Saturday, March 2, 1996. Connie had walked the property that's in question. Let us begin with the history of the purchase of our land at 16 Fox Farm Road. We are the Collins, the ones who are on the map. We talked to Jeff Kelley about the purchase of a lot in a four lot subdivision on Fox Farm Road. We found out that the land across from our proposed purchase was under consideration for rezoning. The Town of Queensbury in 1986 or 87 was revising it's master Plan. All of the zoning in the entire town was being updated. Because of the zoning was in such a state of flux, we instead held off our purchase of the land and attended every rezoning meeting. Finally in 1988, the Town of Queensbury decided to zone the parcel in question to RR3, rural residential three acres. We then made the decision to go ahead and buy the land because of the rezoning to RR3. Our land is two and a half acres so we felt the type of home we would build would fit into the new zoning. In 1989, we began building our home. Now only seven years later, all the criteria used to zone this property RR3 now are thrown out the window due to economic times. We are not against development but the drastic reduction in the lot size does concern us. When we purchased our property we were very aware of the two parcels left on Fox Farm Road. Both of these lots are half acres lots with deed restrictions of homes no smaller then fifteen hundred square feet on the first floor. Both of these parcels have since sold and purchased by people who qualified for HUD loans. I thank you for your time and consideration and just want to re-submit this. And I don't mean this to sound sarcastic but I've had sort of a smaller day in my family, I've had seven trips myself out of home instead of one trip per family and my husband has been on a business trip and he's had two, arriving home and he's gone to get milk while I'm here. So, we've had nine trips from one family. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. MS. SARAH CLARKIN-Good evening. My name is Sarah Clarkin, I'm a planner with the LA Group in Saratoga Springs. I'm here tonight on behalf of Mary Jane Canale, Jeffrey Kilburn, Mark Hoffman, Susan Herlihy and a group of other neighbors living in the proximity of the Indian Ridge Development. Just to give you some background on my educational, professional history. I've been a planner with the LA Group in Saratoga since 1992. Prior to that I was the planner for the New York Planning Federation in Albany and prior to that I was a Planner, Circuit-Rider in Essex County for the Essex County Planning Office. I have a Masters in Natural Resources Planning. The hearing tonight is about a rezoning and subsequent designation of a planned unit development. The Town of Queensbury's Zoning Ordinance in section 179- 51 states in part that a PUD shall achieve the following objective. A development pattern in harmony with the land use intensity, transportation facilities and community facility objectives of the comprehensive land use plan. The PUD, the proposed PUD is not in conformance with and does not achieve these objectives for the following reasons. First, New York State Law section 263 states that zoning shall be in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The rezoning of the lands in question contradicts this comprehensive land use plan and therefore is not in accordance with it. Regarding land use intensity, the town's master plan regarding land use goals, policies and strategies, it states the following. Locate higher density housing in areas with adequate sewer and water services. Locate lower density housing in areas without adequate water and sewer services to protect the town's natural and cultural resources and values. Locate lower density housing in areas not serviced by water and sewer and higher density housing in areas where water and sewer are available. This is somewhat repetitive but it underscores the importance of the issue. Again, in land use strategies, reduce densities in areas of environmental sensitivity without water and sewer. Where these problems can be overcome by the extension of water and sewer lines, consider increasing the density of these areas once these services have been provided. The land use plan which is presented further in the comprehensive plan states that this area which is zoned RR3 is zoned so because this land designation depicts areas which are sensitive to development, they include areas with higher percolation rates within aquifer recharge areas of the town and should be developed at lower densities for residential development until such time as water and sewer facilities are provided. Lands with this designation include an area just west ofI-87 north of Aviation Road. A little later in the plan, on page 67, under future development and density changes, it's states that the densities, especially on the west side of town were determined in part by the lack of sewer facilities and the presence of high perc soils. Once sewer facilities are installed where high perc soils is the major determination for density, consideration should be given to raising the permitted density levels. Since water pollution, since pollution of the water table is a primary concern, the application of lawn and garden chemicals should still influence development patterns. The creation of lawns should be discouraged in favor of the retention of existing woodlot. Clustering or strict cutting regulations should be considered when developing these areas with higher soil percolation rates. Underneath community facilities objectives of the comprehensive land use plan it states that, to expand the sanitary sewer system and water supply system to protect the health and welfare of town residents, expand the water and sewer systems to areas of high population concentrations and fast perc soils as the highest priority. Further it states, provide water and sewer facilities in areas where ground or surface water pollution threatens the public health, safety and welfare of the community. These area as you know does have public water but does not have public sewer facilities. In order to approve a PUD the project must meet certain criteria according to your Zoning Ordinance. Section 179-57 of your Zoning Ordinance states in part that the Planning Board must make certain findings in order to recommend the PUD to the Town Board. The findings include, the proposal meets the intent and objectives of a planned unit development, the project is conceptually sound in that it meets a community need and there are adequate services and utilities available or proposed to be made available in the construction of the development. Regarding the intent and objectives of a PUD, we just discussed that and the project does not meet them and therefore does not meet this criteria. Regarding the community need, we've heard people talk earlier tonight about the abundance of homes that are for sale in the area and the fact that the homes proposed in this development will not be affordable and therefore it does not meet any community need that has been identified to date. Availability of adequate facilities. Again, there's no public sewer in this area and according to the land use plan, then this project does not meet this criteria for PUD approval. Now, it's my understanding that a determination of significance has not been made for the project. Is that true, regarding, under SEQRA? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's true. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's right. MS. CLARKIN-Which then brings us to SEQRA which you need to make your determination of significance. The basic purpose of SEQRA, the State Environmental Quality Review Act, is to incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the existing planning, review and decision making processes of state, regional and local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they directly undertake, fund or approve may have a significant impact on the environment, and, if it is determined that the action may have a significant adverse impact, prepare or request an environmental impact statement. And fundamental to these is the participation of the public in identifying possible impacts and deciding how best to address these impacts. The project under SEQRA is a Type I action and according to SEQRA it states that the fact of an action or project has been listed as a Type I action carries with it the presumption that it is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and may require an environmental impact statement or EIS. This in essence is stating, oh I'm sorry, this provision that triggers the designation as a Type I action is the granting of a zoning change at the request of an applicant for an action that meets or exceeds fifty units not to be connected to existing community or public water and sewer systems including sewage treatment works. And this, in essence then, is saying that the lack of either public water or sewer is likely to have an adverse environmental impact. Part of the SEQRA process includes the determination of significance whether or not the project will have an adverse environmental impact. I hate saying all these section numbers but for the record, section 617.4(a)(l) of SEQRA states that the determination of significance must be made by comparing the impacts which may be reasonable be expected to result action with the criteria listed in the act. Further SEQRA states that to require an EIS for a proposed action the lead agency must determine that the action may include the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact. To determine that an EIS will not be required for the action, the lead agency must determine either that there will be no adverse environmental impacts or that the identified adverse environmental impact will not be significant. Now I just mentioned the criteria for determining significance, among the criteria there are six here that I believe are relevant to this proposed project. First, a substantial adverse change in existing air quality, ground or surface water quality or quantity, traffic or noise levels, a substantial increase in solid waste production. Two, the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation. Three, impairment of environmental characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area. Four, the impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character. Five, a substantial change in the use or intensity of use of the land including agricultural, open space, or recreational resources. And six, creation of material conflict with the community's current plans or goals as officially approved or adopted. Now going back and giving some brief background in each of those. Substantial adverse change in existing groundwater quality and traffic levels. The project does represent a threat to the area's groundwater quality. Mention has been made of the percolation rate in this area. In the comprehensive plan reference is made to the fact that the perc rate is in excess of twenty inches an hour. The test borings that were done on the property indicate perc rates of between one and two minutes. According to the EAF presented by the applicant, seventy-six percent of the site is the Hinckley Plainfield Cobbly Sand soil and the soil survey of Warren County states that in the Hinckley soil permeability, or the rate of water movement through the soil is rapid in the surface layer and the subsoil and very rapid in the substratum. In the Plainfield soil it is moderately rapid on the surface layer and rapid in the subsoil and substratum. The available water capacity, or the capacity of these soils to store water available for plant growth is low or very low. Further, if these soils are used at sites for sanitary waste disposal systems, ground water contamination is a hazard because of permeability. The soils absorb the effluent from waste disposal systems but do not adequately filter it. Mention was made of the fact that the groundwater is sixty feet below the surface. This may give effluent adequately time to filter through however it does not take into account the existence of nitrates which are common obviously in sewage and fertilizers. Nitrates do not filter out and they would be entering the groundwater. Nitrates are a potential source of blue baby syndrome and therefore a source of concern. A traffic study for the area has been conducted. The addition of the Indian Ridge Development to the background levels anticipated in 2001 causes the level of service to drop along several roads. Reference to those roads were mentioned earlier. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineer's Transportation and Traffic Engineering handbook, a level of service D to which some roads will drop and some roads currently exist, is an unstable flow. Freedom to maneuver and driving comfort are low and the book also states that most drivers would find this service level undesirable. Level of service E is the capacity, represents the capacity of the facility and driving comfort is low and accident potential is high. The traffic study upon my reading presents no information regarding the accident history along the road corridor and entering in and out of the various intersections and further it makes no mention of pedestrian safety along Aviation Road. With the addition of those units in the proposed development it would be interesting to see what the increase for potential accidents and safety for pedestrians along Aviation Road would be. This project clearly has potential for adverse impacts to traffic and pedestrian flow. The SEQRA process would allow for an indepth review of the projected traffic and it's impacts on safety of those in vehicles and on foot. Regarding the removal of large quantities of vegetation, the project calls for the removal of forty-three point seven acres of trees. While areas are slated for preservation, this removal will trigger a change in the area's character which is in direct conflict with the objectives of the comprehensive land use plan which calls for the maintenance of existing woodlots. Some of these woodlots and other lands, approximately forty-five point eight acres are slated to become lawns according to the applicant's EAF. The town's comprehensive land use plan states that in this area lawns should be discouraged and I mentioned earlier the potential threat to groundwater quality from the application of fertilizers and pesticides which will obviously be occurring on residential lawns. So again, this project meets the criteria for a positive declaration. Regarding the impairment of environmental characteristics of a critical environmental area. The Rush Pond area is a designated critical environmental area, it is also surrounded by wetlands and a stream classified as AA. This project may represent a threat to the quality of water. I understand that three test borings were done to indicate the flow of groundwater and the applicant himself mentioned the surprise in that the topography flows towards the wetland, yet the groundwater flows away from the wetland. It's our advice that further borings are needed to verify the flow of the groundwater given the strange results and given the topography of the site, further test borings are warranted. Impairment of the character or quality of important historic or archeological resources. The site and it's immediate environs contain both archeological and pre-historic archeological sites. While they have been protected from development, there have been no suggested means for their long term protection. They are a threat to vandalism for example and some discussion should be held regarding their long term protection. Substantial change in the use or intensity of use of the land. Obviously the project represents a change in use from primarily wooded to primarily developed, developed with single family homes, multi-family homes, possibly a senior center and a community service of some sort. It also represents a significant change in the intensity of the use of the land, which is a fundamental consideration of the SEQRA process. I've eluded to it, not eluded to it, I've mentioned it in some detail earlier. Again the criteria for a positive declaration under SEQRA is material conflict with the community's plans or goals as officially approved or adopted. The area is zoned RR3 and the changing of it's zoning to fifteen or twenty thousand square feet or for a PUD, it's in direct conflict with the town's comprehensive plan. So, based on the above, this project meets the criteria and therefore requires a positive declaration of significance and the preparation of an environmental impact statement. As should be evident from the review process to date, and the number of people here tonight, there is a great deal of controversy over this project and one of the fundamental purposes of SEQRA is to allow for a full disclosure of impacts and to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on and assist the lead agency which is the town board with the explanation and discovery of possible mitigation measures. The Town Board is clearly obligated to require an EIS at a minimum in this case. Thank you very much. MS. SUSAN HERLIHY-Susan Herlihy, 24 Fox Hollow Lane. I would like to read and submit this petition signed by members, over three hundred members of the Town of Queensbury. We, the undersigned, are concerned about the impact of the proposed Indian Ridge Development on the quality of life in Queensbury. The proposed density will result in increased traffic congestion and noise. Crowding will be increased in the Queensbury School Area. Air and water quality could be threatened. The development could have adverse environmental impacts on the Rush Pond Glen Lake watershed, one of the few remaining open spaces in this part of Queensbury. The limited benefits can be achieved without the dramatic change in zoning requested by the developer. We strongly urge the Town Board to maintain the integrity of the zoning process by denying the requested rezoning and planned unit development designation. The developer should be required to submit a full draft environmental impact statement as is appropriate to the scope and potential impacts of this project. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- Thank you. Give it to the clerk please. Okay, anyone else care to speak? Yes sir. MR. NEAL IVERSON-Good evening. My name is Neal Iverson, I live at 25 Helen Drive. I'm sure you'll all be relieved to see that I don't have any papers in front of me. I just have a basic bit of philosophy that I think needs to be put before the Town Board. We've had alot of numbers thrown at us, alot of statutes and statistics that I'm sure alot of us are having a hard time digesting. But I think what we need to look at is what most of us in this room who actually live in the Town of Queensbury want from this process. I think most of us live here and stay here because of the open country nature of the town and we want to keep it fundamentally the way it is right now. It's a nice place to live and people are going to come here because of that. I think that the zoning, the rezoning that was done in 1988 was meant to address what's been happening in the Town of Queensbury in the last twenty years or so. We've had accelerating development, alot more people have come to live here, the schools are over flowing and I think what we're, what we have to look at right now and what you the Town Board has to think about is are we going to step back from what was done in 1988 and are we going to increase and accelerate the development that's going on in the Town of Queensbury, fill up all of those open spaces that we now have between all of our neighborhoods and turn Queensbury into yet another bedroom community for Albany? Or are we going to keep development at a relatively slower pace, more manageable. It's going to, the Town of Queensbury is going to grow. I don't know if any of you have ever heard of the chinese torture, the death of the thousand cuts but this looks to me like about a hundred and ten cuts coming all at once. And I think you really need to look at what this is going to set as a precedent. Are we going to do this for the next person that comes along and says change the zoning for me? Or are we going to draw the line here and say, slow, not right away? Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. MR. BILL CANALE-Hello, my name is Bill Canale, I live at 28 Fox Hollow Lane in Queensbury. Ijust have a couple of points I'd like to make. Today I drove around Queensbury very briefly. I went down Dixon Road and saw six for sale signs on houses. In Dixon Heights I saw eleven signs and in Queen Victoria's Grant, seventeen for sale signs. In Hidden Hills there were sixteen for sale signs. Herald Square there thirty-one plus lots and houses available for sale. On West Mountain Road I counted nine for sale signs and in the Pines I counted sixteen for sale signs which is a total of a hundred and six homes available in these few subdivisions in the Town of Queensbury which were all in the same price range and less then the homes that are proposed for the Indian Ridge Development. So, in my opinion it doesn't meet a need for the community. We don't need another a hundred and sixty or ninety homes in that price range. I have another point that I'd like to make about the traffic for Mr. O'Malley. When they did a study on Aviation Road, the eight hundred, was that eight hundred cars per what? MR. O'MALLEY-Per hour. MR. CANALE-Per hour and these cars end up at the intersection of Dixon and Aviation Road and continue on to Fox Farm Road and Potter Road. What about all the traffic from Dixon Road that entered the intersection? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It's counted, that's part of the eight hundred I would guess. MR. CANALE-Okay, Dixon Road and Aviation Road? MR. O'MALLEY-That's just Aviation Road, it's not Dixon. MR. CANALE-What about Dixon Road? MR. O'MALLEY-That was counted, I just didn't mention the numbers for Dixon Road but it was counted. MR. CANALE-It was counted, was is it part of the study? MR. O'MALLEY-No, it's not part of the eight hundred. MR. CANALE-It's not. Well then what is the right figure for the intersection, for the traffic and would that mean a difference in the rating... MR. O'MALLEY-Do you want me to answer that? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, I certainly would. MR. O'MALLEY-The number, when we talked about the volume of traffic on, that I gave before was only counting the traffic on Aviation Road. The numbers at the intersection, all approaches, of Dixon Road, Aviation Road, Farr Lane, Fox Farm, Potter and Aviation Road at that intersection, all movements on all approaches were counted. The numbers that I gave you were just the through traffic along Aviation Road, just for the purposes of discussion. The counts at Dixon Road at the time we did the count, I can give you that number, existing peak hour traffic approximately in the morning there were about fifty-six vehicles that came out of Dixon Road. Fifty-one turned left, five turned right and in the afternoon about a hundred and forty turned left, two went straight across to Farr Lane and about thirteen turned right. Going down Dixon Road from Aviation Road eastbound, a hundred and sixty-five turned right in the morning, ninety in the afternoon. Three came out ofFarr Lane and went down Dixon Road in the morning, five in the afternoon. Two turned left for westbound Aviation Road and to Dixon Road four in the afternoon. All that traffic counts were done, all those counts were done during, and just for information, the counts were conducted for a two hour period from seven in the morning to nine in the morning, from four in the afternoon to six in the afternoon. From those two hours, the peak hour during that two hour interval was used for the purposes of analysis. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mr. O'Malley, what time of the year was that done, please? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-It was done during the school year because I called and turned them in as a suspicious vehicle. MR. O'MALLEy-It was counted in November oflast year. UNKNOWN-What day of the week? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -It was done during the MR. O'MALLEY-I don't know what I was doing yesterday. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Mr. O'Malley? MR. O'MALLEY-Yes ma'am. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-It was done during the school week because I called them in and reported them as a suspicious vehicle. MR. O'MALLEY-I think the analysis was done, the actual counts were conducted on October 30th and 31st of95. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Do you have another question ofMr. O'Malley? Why don't we do that, why don't we let him finish and then we will have other questions? MR. O'MALLEY-Thank you. We will get back to the traffic but I also have a question about the Senior Citizens housing. I am all for Senior Citizen housing for Queensbury however, is this on? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes, I guess, speak directly into it. MR. O'MALLEY-However, I understand that any Senior Citizen are eligible to move into these units that they propose building, if for instance Senior Citizens from Binghamton would like to relocate here they have as much a right to be in that development as a Queensbury Senior Citizen and I do not think that is an asset to this community if we fill up a Senior Citizen housing complex with people from Binghamton or Philadelphia or Washington D.C. If there is a Senior Citizen complex for Queensbury Senior Citizens I think that would be more appropriate in this type of housing. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Fred may I answer that please? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Please do, Betty. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Hud subsidized housing cannot be restricted it is open to anybody in the United States and I would ask you Sir, if you had parents in a different area and who had an income who could not afford regular housing and you would want to bring them here near you in Queensbury would you want them discriminated against because they did not live in Queensbury now? MR. O'MALLEY -Oh, I am not against that however I do not think that, that particular part of this PUD is an asset to this project or to the community. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I will only say to you because I have been very deeply involved with Solomon Heights that there has been a waiting list for that type of facility since the day that it opened and it is a great need in our own area. How you get on that list is a first come first serve and usually the people in this area are much more aware of the fact that, that openings are coming up and somebody is in another area. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Ok, I appreciate that. Yes, Sir. MR. JERRY STANISLOWSKI-I live in the Evergreens, 17 Heinrick Circle My answers are all kind of answered by the Doctor who made a statement that referring to Mrs. Monahan's there is a beautiful Senior Citizens complex right in Clifton Park call Bishop Hubbard and it is well managed I have visited is quite regular and to spend time with the elderly and I think there is a big need for senior citizen housing but I do not think it is a need of the development of this site, due to traffic, school and the concerns of the people in Town. One other thing I walk Dixon Road practically every other night because my son stays after school the special activities including extra study time, sports and traffic right now is very scary and the bus as you know at Queensbury is you stay after for these activities drop the kids off right there at the end of Dixon and Aviation and these kids have to walk down to Evergreen and the rest of these developments, they do not travel down that road. Go out and walk and you will see the danger. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. MR. STEVE PIDGEON-My name is Steve Pidgeon I live on Fox Farm Road I work for an Engineering Company and we have a saying that looks good on paper and this plan if you look at and it looks really slick and if you ask me hey do we need something like that, it looks really nice but I think one of the things that has come out here is that traffic plan is something that really needs to be considered. Environmental aspects which were brought up need to be looked at but we have had housing development in similar situations, most of us would agree to that. There are a couple of minor points that I would like to bring up about first of all the Environmental side, there was talk there were three soil borings that were done as a Geologist for an engineering firm three soil borings for one hundred acres or what ever, seventy eight acres is not adequate to really determine what the ground water levels are. Anybody in the business will tell you that, now, that's doing soil borings maybe above and beyond what a developer needs to do but he is going to use that as information that should be brought out that it is not really significate to determine the ground water levels in the area so the flow could be in any direction and it could be afterwards that the ground water divides upon this property and you would only be able to determine that with a significant number of borings and there is all kinds of literature on what is an accurate type of number of borings for that type of property to develop ground water levels. So I caution just taking these values and data that's provided by the contractor at face value. The other question, as far as the senior citizens center, I know it's an attractive alternative and definitely we need that. Maybe you can answer this question. Where are we with, if he only sells forty houses in this whatever, is there any guarantee we're having the senior citizens center here or is this is just something that's an add on to try to get us to go for this or what? Where do we stand with that? SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- That area has been designated as such. Now they would have to change that to another zone or to another purpose. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm not sure what he's quite referring to Fred. If he's talking about the senior citizens housing or are you talking about the one acre that has been put aside for commercial use? MR. PIDGEON-No, the actual housing, I think that's a very attractful aspect of this whole development. But is it just a proposal? I mean, where are we at with getting something like that built? Is that up to the town or is the developer building this or where are we at with that? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Right now it would look like that National Church Residents who is the developer of the present senior housing there, Solomon Heights, is right now working on a grant for sixty- one units to be placed there on property adjacent to Solomon Heights. UNKNOWN-But that could fall through. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That could fall through, but this land is restricted for senior housing for five years. MR. PIDGEON-So, this is sort of an attractive add on but it's not necessarily something that's going to happen. The other question on the traffic flow, maybe I can get an answer on that now. He mentioned that his peak traffic flow was from, in the evening, was from four to six p.m. Was there any subsidiary flow that was checked for let's say two-thirty to four when your peak traffic out of the school? I mean you've got a school a quarter of a mile down the road. MR. O'MALLEY-If you didn't hear the question the question was, was there any traffic count data collected during the two to three-thirty period time frame when Queensbury High School maybe discharging. The answer to the question is no, no traffic was there. The reason it wasn't is because generally and we have experience which generally supports this, even though that school is very active from two to three-thirty, it does not reflect a combined volume of traffic which exceeds the volumes you see during the normal commuting hours. In other words, we wouldn't see a worse case condition at that time even though that's higher then you would normally see outside of nine a.m. to four p.m., it's not nearly as high as you would find in the four to six. Traditionally, at roads like Aviation Road, the highest peak hour used for design, it's used by DOT, it was probably used in the construction of the bridge at Exit 19, is the peak hour which occurs in the afternoon peak hour. MR. PIDGEON -So, just to follow up on that. You're saying that you didn't do a study and you're assuming that, that is the case. I'm confused. MR. O'MALLEY-We did not do any counts at that time because the volume of traffic on Aviation Road is going to be lower then it will be from four to six. Secondly, the active related to the project is going to be lower then it will be from four to six. Generally, homes are not very active except for those children arriving from school and to school and so forth in the afternoon especially today's two family income where both parents are generally working. MR. PIDGEON-I think that's still an assumption, to say that's it not going to be the case unless you've checked it and you've collected data to prove that. I mean, I don't want to get in an argument with you. MR. O'MALLEY-I know you don't. Look, I'm dead serious when I say, we're not trying to pull any wool over anyone's eyes with this traffic study. Number one, I have a responsibility to give my client the best information that I can give him as a professional traffic and transportation expert on what I think the impacts of this project are. You can believe me or you can not believe me but I have twenty-five years of experience that would say, that from two to three-thirty in the afternoon I'm not going to see the volume of traffic on Aviation Road that I will between four and six in the afternoon. Now, you can travel with that and you can disagree with it but we have all kinds of information which suggest that. The second question is, even if the numbers were higher, the amount of traffic generated by the site is not going to, because the impact is not the Aviation Road traffic. That traffic moves unrestricted, it has no stop signs. It's the traffic coming out of the side street that is the traffic under concern. It's that traffic coming out from that subdivision at the stop sign that's going to have to cross a volume of traffic. In the afternoon, at two o'clock in the afternoon residential communities generally do not generate high volumes of traffic. MR. PIDGEON-The only other traffic concern that I have as far as that goes is the affect of cars coming down Dixon Avenue. As you have at your peak flow hours it's, from living around that area and everything and coming up Dixon and coming out of Fox Farm, if you've got the car or cars lined up trying to come out of Dixon, trying to make that turn, it's a very high angle and you're trying to watch traffic at Aviation. Now, you've got an increase number of cars coming offFarr Lane, are they going straight or are they going left, it becomes very confusing there if you don't have some sort of traffic control, it's really going to become a nightmare out of there. Because you're talking about adding roughly eighty to a hundred and ten cars in the morning, I think that's what the study said. Also from in that subdivision living in there, let's say the hundred and ten houses are built and there's a line of traffic to get out ofFarr Lane and I've got to get to work and I'm late. I'm going down Fox Farm one way. It's going to happen, I mean let's ... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I guess that's your choice. MR. PIDGEON-It's going to happen, reality is going, I feel sorry for the people not only that are going to be around the development but the people that are going to be living in that development, a hundred and ten people are going to find a real traffic nightmare if there is not a significant plan for how it's going to be handled. It's very bad as it is and this is making it worse. So, I would just caution the board that if you're going to get ahead and okay this kind of development, there has to be some sort of in place plan ahead of the building schedule to take care of that, or your fire and rescue down the road will be very busy because it's very scary right now. And that's all I have. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, thank you very much. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Since we're on the category of my question, I'd like to ask Mr. O'Malley a question at this point. If you did a traffic study and I don't, I'm not going to quote what grade the intersections are at Fox Farm and Farr Lane at this time, why would you do a traffic study of eighty vehicles coming out of Farr Lane instead of making the entrance two ways into the development so that they can split that up and forty cars come out Fox Farm and forty cars come out Farr Lane? Why would you put the impact all on one intersection? MR. O'MALLEY-I think we have some mixed decision making that was done in the process of trying to analyze the traffic and that was looking at the circulation and the access and egress to the site itself. And there was a decision early, Mike you might want to talk about it whether or not that access to Fox Farm Road was going to be full access, enter and exit. Normally, from a traffic perspective, there are benefits to be derived by splitting the traffic and deluding the concentration of site related traffic to more then one intersection. Obviously, eighty cars at one intersection is going to have a chance to wait longer then it would be if there would be forty at two intersections. Mike? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-That was kind of a business judgement made by the development team, if you will in response to what we saw in the minutes of the meetings that were held in connection with the approval for Solomon Heights. The main objection to that seemed to be a fear of some traffic on Fox Farm Road. So, trying to accommodate those people that live on Fox Farm Road, there's certainly more numbers then those that live on Farr Lane and we suggested and everybody has seemed to have taken it, at least as a good suggestion at this point that the entrance from Fox Farm Road be a connection from the end of the existing Fox Farm Road one way into the development. I think probably and Dennis, if you did split it, perhaps then the level of service might not change on Farr Lane southbound in the afternoon to the extent that it changes. Whether it would change on Fox Farm would probably be speculative at this point. Alot of the traffic that comes out of this subdivision appears and from the way that the other traffic travels, would turn to the east anyway. Although some of the neighbors have spoken about the fact that they don't come out Fox Farm Road and their own subdivision, they go west and come out Gilmore in the first instance. So, maybe some people would do that. My understanding was that the neighbors did not want that as far as part of the project and that's why the traffic study was directed in the manner it was. It was to give you the worse case scenario based upon a primary exit and entrance and a secondary entrance only. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Yes sir. MR. MAURICE WIART-My name is Maurice Wiart, I live at 41 Fox Hollow Lane and one of the residents that do use Fox Farm Road. I just want to question some common sense and I kind oflike the common sense about the traffic flow pattern, my wife is part of ...standing up ...Basically I come out that road every morning and I turn right fortunately you take a look at the over all traffic pattern not just in that restricted area more in that total area, maybe in the Pines the upper end of Aviation up West Mountain Road that is a bottle neck. There is that one ..from Potter to Exit Aviation that every single bit of traffic goes through. Common sense to me, would dictate that you do not put into the high traffic flow .. .into a bottle next, we have rescue vehicles we have fire department up the road, quite often that goes off, they need to come down there so really you are inserting more traffic any traffic lights to slow down the traffic. The school busses every morning they come up ...they block traffic so you inserting a high amount of traffic in the area of the school busses and kids and all of a sudden you need to get an emergency vehicle through that creates a problem. They have one exit you were saying one hundred and ten single family houses you are saying two income families which means there are probably going to be two trips in there and at that range your housing indicates two family dwellings there maybe more than one trip per morning one and a half so you are talking about one hundred and fifty trips anyway. Due to the nature, most of the residents of Queensbury which I feel are like me, if you have children you are into activities the high school is focal point for a lot of our activities. So,just think of trying to get out from Little League you could have a line half a mile long. So, even when you have the inconvenience in the morning and the peak hours from four to six p.m. in the afternoon the ...traffic what ever it is could you take a look at what...it doesn't necessary..the rest of the day, you have peaks after school seven or eight in the evening if there are activities at the High School all the roads on the west side of the interstate focus coming come in their cars through that area more high traffic, so basically there is more traffic in the area. I will not let my children walk on Aviation Road or ride their bikes I just do not trust them because of the traffic. The other fact that you did not point out is there a little bit of an optical illusion through there, when you take a look across Farm it does not come in quite at ninety degrees it comes in little bit less than ninety degrees you are looking back over your shoulder at the traffic coming at you from the left. Also, there is a special ...optical illusion you cannot tell necessarily how far and how fast that traffic is coming. Since I have lived there for about four years I know of at least three major accidents at that intersection, people coming out of Fox Farm. So, you are increasing the traffic, you increase accidents. There are ...barriers of trees you are going to keep the trees but it also creates variations in true visibility down the road either way. So, again I think you really have to take a look not at the intersection but also at that one little bottle neck it is a two lane at Aviation and Potter to Farr Lane and Dixon. The increase traffic you insert those one hundred and fifty trips ...at a really bad time that is really going to create accidents. I am a physician I do not like treating people that got broken up in a car accident, I hate treating little kids,...! really do not want to see that happen it scares me. I know a lot of people do not use that exit at Fox Hollow you go the other way because of that problem and there is no easy remedy. I think you are making a little bit lighter how that traffic will impact it, I think it will be impacted with people getting hurt and that is what scares me. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I appreciate that. You are next. MS. LINDA RUDELL-My name is Linda Rudell and I live at 350 Dixon Road. I'm one of the houses that are for sale on Dixon Road for the past twenty-two months along with three hundred and six other houses in Queensbury that are for sale. I would say the majority of people are selling their houses because they have to leave the area like I do because the jobs are going. They are not coming in. So, now you want to have a development with a hundred ten new single family homes. Whose going to buy these? My house has dropped roughly twenty-five thousand dollars in the past two years, I'm trying to sell it and it's larger then, it's six hundred and fifty square feet, larger then what their projected smallest house is and they want to sell it at a hundred and ten thousand. Now whose, you know whose going to buy these houses. I'm not making light of the traffic, the traffic is serious but you're going to cut down the trees, you know cut a real pretty area to build a development and with these three hundred and six houses do not include the empty lots that are still sitting out there say at Hudson Pointe and other developments that are just sitting there. Nobody is coming in to buy them. Whose going to buy these houses? Why do we need another development in this area. Maybe in a few years when the economy improves and we get some jobs in here for decent people and maybe there will be a turn around but that's not going to happen today or any time soon. Right now the people that are trying to sell their houses are trying to leave, not trying to upgrade. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. MS. DOROTHY SEHLMEYER-My name is Dorothy Sehlmeyer and I live at Dixon Heights and one of the reasons I wanted to speak was because so many of the people that have spoken here tonight lives immediately in the area that's going to be affected up in the Fox Farm, Farr Lane area. Well I'm not, I don't have an ax to grind here, I don't have an interest as they do except that I do travel Dixon Road every morning to go up to Aviation Road to go to work and every morning I wonder if that's going to be the morning I'm going to have an accident. The traffic up there now is terrible. I come out of Dixon Road and I go left onto Aviation to go down to West Mountain Road and trying to check the traffic coming from both directions and watching to see if someone's coming out of Fox Farm, it a little bit to the side and across, I think it needs a traffic light now and I can't imagine what it's going to be like if they add this development. Also the traffic person said that he anticipates eighty trips out of their in the morning. So there's a hundred and ten single family homes with two car garages and he himself said that their probably going to be double income families, that add's up to alot more then eighty cars out of there, to me in the morning. And that's all I have to say. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- Thank you. This gentleman right here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Fred, I'd like to stop here a minute. She asked a question that's been in the back of my mind all away along and I would like to hear Mr. O'Malley how he arrived at eighty trips when we've got a hundred and ten units and two families, everybody is working nowadays. MR. O'MALLEY-Well as I mentioned in the, when I gave my presentation the numbers that we use for the estimated traffic related to a site are numbers that are essentially taken from traffic counts done at similar projects, similar subdivisions in this region and all other regions in the United States. It makes no, it doesn't make any determination about whether or not there's more then one trip during the morning. What it's doing is calculating how many trips are made during the peak hour. Alright, you may have two people that leave for work in the mornings, they don't necessarily both have to leave during the peak hour. I may go to work at one time, my wife may go to work at another time. Alright, that number is validated simply by going to subdivisions all around and we've done them in Clifton Park, we've done them in Colonie, we've done them in Delmar and Bethlehem. A number of locations where we've actually counted the traffic that's come out of a subdivision, taken the number of cars that come out divided by the number of single family homes in the subdivision and estimated a number of trips per unit. Some units may make more, some units may make less. You may make three trips in the peak hour. The guy next door to you may make no trips during the peak hour. We're looking at an average. It would make sense that the more and more counts you do and the more and more subdivisions you examine, the more valid the data will become. We took the trip generation book, Jim is familiar with it, it's a report put out by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. It has a tremendous number of studies. They're looking at residential subdivisions, they're making an estimate that has the highest statistical correlation. We do not try to predispose, in fact we go out of our way to try to compare that data with data in this area. The data that we've collected at these subdivisions has validated the data in the IT. For examples, some areas like retail it doesn't validate where are some trips related to retail like Aviation Mall, that maybe different here then they would be say in California or Texas. But in this case, residential subdivisions in looking at the number of trips and that's what we do, on an average per household the trip data that we use has been validated and has been proven to be statistically fairly accurate. And we're not testing whether more trips are made over the period of a peak period in the morning. During the peak, peak hour of traffic on Aviation Road this is the number of trips that will come from that subdivision and I feel really comfortable in saying to you from all the studies that I have done and all of my information and all of my research support that data. I know how sensitive you feel and I know what I do is . .but I am telling you that in all the times that I have done it if you look at it the more and more data you collect the more and more it validates the data we use in trying to estimate the amount of traffic during the peak hour both in the morning and afternoon. UNKNOWN-Didn't you ...say that there was one point something per household? MR. O'MALLEY-That's total number of trips enter and exiting during the peak hour not during a peak period, you may leave, the peak hour happens to be and remember there has been some discussion about trips out, we do not have twenty four hour counts for Aviation Road but if Dixon Road is reflective for example of traffic on an hourly basis proportional to Aviation Road the question about school travel for example I can tell you that the data that we have collected on Aviation or on Dixon Road near Helen Drive suggested that, that peak hour in the morning begins at seven forty five and goes to eight forty five. The volumes of traffic before that are about half the volumes of traffic after that hour are about half. This is two way directional volume traffic. In the afternoon for example from two to three o'clock in the afternoon a hundred and fifty one cars per hour. From three to four two hundred and fourteen from four to five two hundred and forty one from five to six two hundred and forty seven six to seven one hundred and forty one, these are twenty four hour counts it is done by machine that have been collected over a period of a number of days. This evidence would suggest to me that the numbers that we use in trying to look at the peak hours of activity are in fact valid. There is nothing in this area that suggests that we are different than another commuting area, Aviation Road is a commuting corridor. People come home from work at four to six in the afternoon they leave for work between seven and nine in the morning that has been is very traditional and we have not found anything here that contradicts that evidence. Did I answer your question? UNKNOWN-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. Thank you. MR. PAUL ADAMS-Good evening my name is Paul Adams I represent National Church Residence and we are involved in Senior Citizens housing, Solomon Heights in particular, on Farr Lane now. It is true that this housing would be available for anybody in the United States because it is used with taxpayer money, your money in particular, however through all the time that we have been building housing we have over one hundred and forty sights throughout the United States we go from as far South as Puerto Rico to Vermont and out to California. Our studies have indicated that all the residents that move into our housing as a rule not all but as a rule live in the area. Why is that? Because Mom and Dad have gotten older in the community where they live or the possibility the son and daughter are in the community and they need more close contact with their family so they might come into the community with their sons and daughters. But, the possibility of someone moving from Binghamton to Queensbury I will tell you right now is zero. We cannot get them to move from Whitehall in Granville down into Queensbury, we cannot get them to move from Queensbury to Whitehall in Granville I can put Senior Citizens right now I believe in Whitehall in Granville in a heart beat because I have an apartment there that is open but I cannot put someone in Solomon Heights because I have over seventy people on a waiting list trying to get in, and who are these people, they are your moms your dads your grandparents and people that were brought up in this community. You think they want to move someplace else, no they certainly don't. This is their home just like it is yours. So, I would not care to who's coming into your neighborhood there certainly would not be City people, we had the happen once, someone got almost abandoned in the City by, she was a house keeper for a large family and the family decided to move and the housekeeper decided to go up North she lasted two months and decided she needed her taxi cabs and her bus fares and so forth and she had to go immediately back downtown, believe me we are not importing people. In regards to the traffic situation I am a little surprised with the experts we have and these are traffic experts and not someone off the street here telling you that we are going to have eighty one cars in that area I am very concerned with our Senior Citizens too coming out of that area, but you are really looking at from this whole development approximately one person every minute and a half coming into that area one ...and I understand this could be a five to six year project. I will tell you that traffic generates in that area is going to increase far more than that from other things that might be going on in the neighborhood and further out in the development than coming off from Farr Lane. There is a problem with traffic on Aviation Road it will never get better unless we go back to horse and buggy. If anybody wants to know more about senior housing I would gladly answer any questions. UNKNOWN-Going back to Bishop Hubbard DEPUTY CLERK BARBER-Can you come up Sir so I can get.. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Jerry we are going to have to get you on mic here on the record. MR. JERRY ST ANISLOWSKI -My name is Jerry Stanislowski I live on Seventeen Heimick Circle Sir, I would like to refer this question to you and your senior citizen building, it is very nice, but I think the one they are proposing and the development of single families and double families is not what our seniors want here in Queensbury something along the lines of yours, Bishop Hubbard is more appropriate I think we could do it and we should. Thank you. MR. ADAMS-What we have found out is that seniors like activity. I will give you a fine example of that. We have quite a few, some of you might know or might not know, we have one in Ballston Spa at Double Day Woods, a ninety five unit senior housing. Come on down, go out into our back yards, we have a beautiful patio out there facing the woods, it has tables out there, lounge chairs and so forth for our residents. However, on any day of the week you will never find anybody out there. Why? There is no activity out there. Where are our senior citizens? They're in the front of the building where the traffic is coming and going and people moving around in a continuous basis. So senior citizens do not like to be isolated because take, look at your mom and dad, think how often they are really glad when you call or drop by. They do not see people on an every day basis. Activity in and around them is a great satisfaction not just from ... great activity. So, it is a reasonable mix to put it in a residential area. Solomon Heights are building out their... beautify it is set it off so is Double Day Woods in our new building in Clifton Park. Solomon Heights, I am sorry Shenandohoah Village...it is in a middle of a development down there, the rents for those apartments that are surrounding it are five hundred and fifteen dollars and our Senior Citizen Development is right in the middle of all of that. It seems to be working out extremely well. That project opened up in November...it opened up in November and that one has over fifty people on a waiting list right now and has a facility of fifty units. That will also give you an idea of need. I understand the concerns about traffic because when I go down to Clifton Park it is a zoo down there at 146. So I can attest and all of you should be able to do that, your high peak traffic in your area is, as the traffic engineer says, it is when people are coming, going home from work. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-I just had a question. The grant program 202, what is the status of the next funding round? Has there been a submission date for the application for funding? MR. ADAMS-The status for funding is currently for a 202, it should be out before the end of this month. What that means is, is what we call an NOF A, Notification of Funds Available. That is all it means, and the government has passed legislation that allows us to continue national senior citizen housing units this year, we also know it will continue for next year. Obviously this has no impact on your decision here, within the next two months the catch here you will have to put it in. There are other ways to fund this, someone was concerned that well, you know what is a guarantee? I will tell you that the funds will be made available one way or the other to put senior housing on this land. We have five years, we do not intend to wait five years. We would like to get that started and after our plans like anybody else that comes before the Board and they are approved we will get started on building this right a way it took a long time to get Solomon Heights up and running I would say that we would like to see this go on in construction within two years if this is settled during this funding round, but it might take three years, again just like this process it is a long process to go through. But, we are prepared to go forward with this immediately once a decision has been made to go with it and a decision has been made not to go with it then obviously we will go to other sites. You, know it is an on going process with us we are looking at other sites because there is such a crying need for housing in this particular area. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, Thank you. This gentleman way in the back. MR. ROBERT ORBANE-My name is Robert Orbane and I reside at 9 Heinrick Street in Queensbury in the Evergreen Development. I have very little to add to the factual perceptual concerns that have been presented before me tonight. I would like to thank those who have come before me for having done their homework and presented the case, I think for the citizens in a rather concise fashion. I do share their concerns both as an always conservative and as a citizen of Queensbury, as a parent of young school children and as a property owner and just two observations or notes I would like to add. One, is I would implore you to please not let anything happen that would divert traffic in my existing development or anyone else's existing development. I think that is, an absolute absurdity that, that would even have to be brought up as potential solution or alternative traffic pattern. Secondly, with regard to this phase that's designated as a commercial building. My personal experience has been with the Queensbury Zoning Board that in a residential area anything that maybe considered a commercial in any way is, makes a big lump in their throat and things have been brought up here that I have been through with the Zoning Board things mentioned in presentations with regard to the possibility of child care centers, things like that going into a residential area and that was essentially provoked in my personal instance that the property owner in Queensbury in an area that was zoned a residential area and if you wanted more information about that... gives you, a matter of fact there has been, you know, I do have a personal precedent has been set as to what, a list of what commercial or professional entities may, would be... at least from my personal instance, property I own in Queensbury. So, I think that as was presented tonight, smacks to me of what Dr. Hoffman as mentioned earlier that the citizens not being able to fight City Hall, it would be something along those lines were allowed to be placed in this area that is essentially zoned residential. And it was eluded to earlier by one of the other gentleman that came up that those who have made, had an impact to the traffic and I don't know if that's been addressed at all but with a day care center going in there, how many more is that going to add at the peak hours? Thank you for your time. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Fred, I'd like to add a little explanation to what the gentleman just said. For the commercial area that's proposed in this particular PUD, it would be very closely defined what could go in there as it was in Hudson Pointe and that, you know, it's not a wide open commercial area. In a PUD the Town Board has the right to make those kind of determinations of what could go in there that would be a community asset. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, yes sir. MR. BYRON SWEET -Byron Sweet, Farr Lane. Now, you're going to have two ways in and one way out. Right? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's what they're MR. SWEET -And I guess that's going to cause some traffic jams. Okay, I'll start off from where I came from and so on and how far I've been here and so on and so forth. I moved, I lived in Hudson Falls, Main Street. I got sick of that and I moved up on 115 Aviation Road I believe. I bought the kids a horse and I lived there a few years and they put Manor Drive and the next thing I know, the horse was sitting in the middle of the development. So I give the horse away. But that wasn't too bad. Finally, I guess I rented that house there and they sold the house and I bought the house and moved it, I had a choice between Manor Drive and 14 Farr Lane, a dead end street. I moved the house on a dead end street, the next to the Civil Defense so nobody would be building next to me probably. But now they build a road through there and now it looks like there going to put all the traffic back out through my way so that means you have to put a four lane road to get out there. Right? So, what's going to happen to all the land there? The last time they built Solomon Heights, they tried to run across my lawn. I mean, this is what happens. You build there, and they're talking about well the old people at Solomon Heights. Well, how about the old guy out front? You know what I mean? I'm retired now and I'm living in Clifton Park. If I wanted to live in Clifton Park, I would move to Clifton Park. See what I'm saying? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I understand. MR. SWEET-That's my point, I guess. Now, how many houses are going to build on three acres of land? SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I guess that all depends on how you add the numbers. MR. SWEET-Like three or? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Depending on the acreage that's available. I don't, you know, what you heard them say I guess was the average, what six point six eight of an acre. Is that about where we are? A little over a half an acre. So, if you've got three acres you've got MR. SWEET -So actually, actually that's three acres, let's get right down to it, that's three acres, what do you have to have, twelve houses or more? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Do the math for me there, Mike. COUNCILMAN PUL VER-A little more then five. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, a little more then five. COUNCILMAN PULVER-They're proposing a little more then five on acres. MR. SWEET -About five houses, right? I think it's going kind of, I think it's going to be built too fast, my opinion. I think too, like they say, there's a county setting, right. Now, you're going to lose your country setting, in my opinion, yea and I think it would be better off if you left it just the way it is, that's what it's zoned for. Well, this is another thing, the zoning laws have never done much for me. Well I built a house in residential, right. So, where am I? I'm in a bunch of multi family houses. Right? And on top of that, see I had two family houses and I sold them because it was a pain in the neck. I got sick of them and now I'm right in the middle of them again. Do you see what I'm saying? Now I'm going to retire and I'm going to live down like in Clifton Park, on a thruway or something. I mean, it don't make no sense to put people in two ways and one way out. At least put them out two ways. It makes more sense to me. I mean you ain't got to be too smart to figure that out. You're going to have to widen that road out sooner or later, and every time you widen the road out you take people's land. Right? I would say just leave it the way it was as a residential three acres. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Thank you. MS. BARBARA BENNETT-Barbara Bennett, Queensbury. I didn't intend to get involved but I live on Dixon Road where when you try to back out of the driveway, if the traffic isn't coming one way, it's coming the other way. I'm very aware of what the Aviation Road traffic is. I came up Aviation Road this afternoon from Route 9 at three thirty. The traffic was backed up from the Queensbury School down to what used to be Papa Gino's at three thirty this afternoon. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, anyone else? Yes, ma'am. MS. JANICE STOTLER-My name is Janice Stotler and I live at 19 Heimick Street in Queensbury in the Evergreen Association. My husband and I purchases this home eight years ago. He wanted a house that was up on Dorset Place which exits onto Crownwood which exits onto Aviation Road. I wanted the house on Heimick Street and finally let me win because he didn't want to drive out of Crownwood and turn left eight years ago. The traffic has not gotten better. Like the lady ahead of me just said, I sometimes come up Glen Street, come up Aviation Road in approximately the three, three-thirty, four o'clock area. I don't mind sitting through all those lights going up Aviation Road once. The second time I don't mind it too much but the third time, I'm really ticked off because I'm sitting through the same light sometimes two and three times, there is so much traffic trying to get through there. So, we chose to live on a street that would exit onto Dixon so we could scoot in and out, we both worked in Glens Falls and this is eight years ago and the traffic has gotten alot worse since then. For two days this week I was sitting at the corner of Dixon by the Getty station, where it's Dixon and Aviation reach that point and I watched a child approximately ten years old with a bicycle and a bike helmet. The first day I watched fearful, the second day I just kind of put my head down and said, I can't watch this kid try to cross this road. When I hear the screeching of tires and hear a crash, then I'll get out and try to help. But I can't watch this kid try to cross the road and that was approximately three-thirty, four o'clock in the afternoon. It wasn't even the actual peak period yet and luckily my daughter is twenty-eight and lives away. I don't have to worry about children anymore but that to me is a major concern. The other thing I wanted to say was, I am definitely for senior citizen housing. We have a great need in this area not only for senior citizen housing but for low income housing and when I first heard that this project in the paper was low income, I thought well this is something that is needed in the area. We don't need the extra children for our school system but we do need decent low income housing as well as decent senior citizen housing. I would be very happy if they could start Solomon Heights Phase II tomorrow. I would back that one hundred percent because they don't have the problem of putting more children in our school system because they're senior citizens and they drive their cars but not really during the peak periods. And I would definitely support any senior citizen housing in the same area. Somebody else noted, well first I thought, okay for senior citizens and low income housing but in coming here tonight I'm finding out the price is between one ten and one sixty, to me is not low income housing and like other people I have seen numerous houses for sale in the area in that price range, houses that have been for sale for one, two and three years, just not moving. And I just don't think we need to put another a hundred and ten houses of that type in. Also, they said that this project could take up to seven years to do their phases and it could be finalized seven years from now. To me, that's an awful time to say that builder will finish everything the way he said it would, when he started the work, he said this is my plan. I know in Florida a lot of builders who have started down there, they have gone, you know bankrupt, run out of funding. There are just some very expensive homes next to dirt lots with weeds growing. Even here, Leland Acres. It's beautiful in there, Ambershire, was Northern Homes Development, beautiful places in there but you go in and you find lots that have been stripped, now they're piles of sand with weeds growing in them. That detracts from the house that's maybe two hundred and fifty thousand dollars sitting next door to that lot. They can't find a buyer for the lot. So, the last thing I feel we need are any more unfinished developments and any more houses in that price range or over. We don't need any more Hiland Park deals either. The other thing in closing I would like to say is, gee the Red Lobster couldn't get their zoning changed and I was not very happy about that, I must be honest. I thought gee, how many cars can be going in and out of Red Lobster and I love seafood and I wanted that to go through. But Red Lobster couldn't get their way, they couldn't' get it rezoned and they found an alternative and they got their needs met and we got out needs met by decreasing the traffic on Aviation Road. And it just seems that we should stick with the zoning. It was zoned a certain way to begin with for a reason. Part of why we chose to move up here was city conveniences but country living. I'm from Glens Falls, I've lived here for more then forty-five years so I'm not an outsider, I have roots in this community and I would like to see it remain the way it is now. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. DR. MARIL YN VANDYKE, TOWN HISTORIAN-I am Marilyn VanDyke I am the Historian for the Town of Queensbury and I just wanted to comment briefly on the archaeological studies that was done for this development as that we bear in mind that whenever we are going to change the lay of the land that we look at what happened before and that we properly record and note the history of a particular area. I reviewed the findings of the archaeological report and I noted that they made some very significant statements in their report it is the Hartgen Archaeological report on page five they said for example, the possibility of the project area containing prehistoric archaeological material as assessed by the New York State Museum is high the preliminary findings show prehistoric cultural materials located along the northern and western parts of this project and to date with their preliminary study they found a number of items, pottery, a ...bowl, chipped stones. These areas are traversed by water and are part of the Rush Pond westland as we have already noted is highly probable that native americans dwelled or camped at these sites while hunting and fishing in this area of the Town ship. On page eleven Hartgen Associates that additional investigation of this area and project modifications to avoid site that were the habitations of earlier people. In particular lot eighty five of the proposed project was found to have considerable pre- historic material if you reviewed the map that they have presented in their report of their preliminary findings. On page twelve, this area needs defining in a stage two study in order to be avoided during any and all construction. A stage two survey is necessary to determine whether this site contains information that would enable a determination of eligibility to the national registrar of historic places, it is very possible that this is a very sensitive and was at one time a very highly developed native american site. Preliminary study indicates that a deeper prehistoric occupation may have ...at this site. Control of archaeological excavation are necessary to determine both the horizontal and the vertical cultural deposit and the extent that they may impact this project. So, as the Town Historian I would recommend that the findings and recommendation of the Hartgen Archaeological Associates be followed before the subdivision proceeds any further with the view to protecting these findings and learning all that we can about them before we change the way of the past. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you Marilyn. MR. JIM MILLER-My name is Jim Miller and I'm a landscape architect. I worked with Ken.... on that project and that, it is kind of confusing what, the way that report reads. But, early on this is as the Board knows, this is about the sixth generation of this plan that has been refined several times and the plan that was submitted and was studied earlier with a different plan for this and what she had indicated was in the area of this lot number eighty five there was some significant findings in that area and she recommended additional excavation of that area. We had a meeting with her and we were in contact with Shipo through the State and what was determined we had a choice we could either excavate that site and get it cleared and remove the artifacts and file them properly or the other alternative was to avoid the area entirely. So, sense the only area that was identified was along the perimeter as a matter of fact there was substantial sites indicated in the archaeological study and the only ones that we showed on our plan were where something was found. The decision was made to avoid those areas re-design the plan the lots were pulled back from the bluff further there also were further indications interlocked around those areas to avoid them completely. The revised plan was the one that was submitted to the State and that was the one that was signed of on. So, we really, we responded to the initial findings, Hartgen Associates also did investigations for the original Solomon Heights Projects they did some investigations in the area of the run ways and there were other tests done throughout the site and those were the only ones that were found, so there was follow ups with that and we did go through the completion of that it is just on clear in the report because the plan was re-designed after that report was filed. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Ok. Thank you. After this gentleman. MS. MARY JANE CANALE-Hi, I am Mary Jane Canale, I live on 28 Fox Hollow Lane I understand that the Town of Queensbury has an advisory committee for the new comprehensive land use plan, is that correct? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That is correct. MS. MARYJANE CANALE-Ok. What is the purpose of this, is it to rezone and to look at the property. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, certainly it is for the purpose of having them look at the town overall, but Jim you may want to add to that specific goals we have set. MS. MARYJANE CANALE-Can I just add to, I just want to know did that committee have any input on this project? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-No. That committee is doing a town wide update to the comprehensive land use plan. MS. MARYJANE CANALE-I just want to add that I also understand that Michael Vasiliou is on that Board. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I believe you are right. MS. MARYJANE CANALE-I think that is a conflict of interest. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Ok. MR. JOHN CAFFREY-My name is John Caffrey, I'm an Attorney in Glens Falls, my office is at 100 Bay Street. I represent a group of the neighbors of this project including Mr. Canale who just spoke, Mark Hoffman who spoke earlier, Jeffrey Kilburn, Susan Herlihy and I am sure many others. I did not personally meet with all of them but they asked me to be here tonight, as they did ask Miss Clarkin to be here. I am not going to repeat all the specifics that Ms. Clarkin raised but I do have a few specific issues to address. First with regard to the traffic study, they said they did their counts in October, it is kind of like sending your biologist out to look for butterflies in February. The traffic counts are going to be much higher in the summer around here then they are in October and just in the last month traffic has gone up significantly and it is not even the Fourth of July yet. I think that part of the environmental impact statement the applicant should be made to re-do their traffic study during the summer when traffic levels are going to be higher. With regard to the senior citizen housing I do not think that anybody is opposed to senior citizen housing but really what that is, is the trojan horse of this project. The applicant is using that as bait really to induce the town to approve the rezoning for the rest of the single family residents. They're really are completely umelated to senior citizen housing. It would be quite possible to do a senior citizen housing project on the fringes of this site next to Solomon Heights or elsewhere in the town that wouldn't require rezoning the other hundred and ten or twenty or forty acres of this project from three acres down to one half acre zoning. The town is under no legal obligation to rezone this property. It's currently zoned consistent with your master plan. Open space zoning is a perfectly legitimate reason to zone property for low density. Even if there was some initial error regarding the soils capacity to handle septic systems and from what Miss Clarkin said, that mayor may not be so and requires further study but even if that were true, if there was an error with regards to the ability to handle septic systems, open space is another equally important component of the three acre zoning and that should be preserved. I don't think there's any question that the property owners here could earn a reasonable return from this property at the existing three acre zoning. According to the records on file with the county tax map office, Mr. Farone who owns most of the property paid twenty-four hundred dollars an acre for that property. So even if had three acre lots, who could make a very good return on his investment at this point. Mr. Bryan who owns the front part of the property and part of that property was already sold for Solomon Heights, according to the county records paid eighty-one thousand five hundred for that property and sold maybe half of it or so to Solomon Heights for seventy thousand dollars. So I don't think these applicants can come in here and claim any kind of economic hardship. I don't know where Mr. Vasiliou fits in the picture with the current property owners, whether he's a contract vendee or what but as to the owners of record of the property I don't think there's any doubt that there's a reasonable return to be made at the existing three acre zoning. As Ms. Clarkin identified in great detail, the proposal to rezone this is contrary to many, many portions of the master plan and the town law requires zoning to be consistent with the master plan and thus it would be illegal to rezone this down to half acre zoning at present. The proposal to do a rezoning down to half acre and then to approve the PUD I think is contrary to the intention and spirit of your PUD ordinance. It says, the PUD ordinance says that PUD's are supposed to be based on the existing density. Every time somebody comes in for a PUD, first you rezone and then you approve a PUD. That whole clause has no meaning and you might as well just throw the whole thing out because you're not enforcing it. I think that you have to look at the intention of that, that in a PUD the density should not exceed what was previously identified when you did town wide rezoning and a town wide master plan rather then basically spot zone this and then approve a PUD for it. I also think that what the applicant is doing here and Mr. Miller's statement a few moments ago about the archeological study really confirm my suspicions, is that they're desperately trying to avoid having to do an environmental impact statement and they're leading you into what's essentially a conditional negative declaration under SEQRA. Any time an issue is raised that they think may require an environmental impact statement, they offer up some conditions to the project that they hope will mitigate those impacts so that you won't require them to do that environmental impact statement and a conditional negative declaration is only allowable for an unlisted action under SEQRA. It's not allowable for a Type I action. This is a Type I action because of the rezoning for more then, I think it's fifty units and even if you don't call it a conditional negative declaration that's essentially what you would be doing if at this point you approve this project with the conditions that the applicant has offered up here. Also Rush Pond is designated, by the town several years ago as a critical environmental area. If you're not going to enforce that now and require an environmental impact statement for this project which is right up on the borders of the Rush Pond wetland, then I really wonder why the town bothered to create that critical environmental area. This is some project a half mile away, this is right on the borders of that wetland and I think if nothing else this, the CEA designation requires the impact statement. The granting of this rezoning is not required. It's not like this is the Planning Board where if you meet the criteria, you get a permit. This is, the granting of this is something the town does not have to do. You can deny it now without even going through the environmental impact statement process, the SEQRA regulations allow you to do that, to vote right now to deny it and not have, not make the applicant go through the impact statement. But if you're not ready to deny it now we think the evidence is quite clear that an environmental impact statement is required to assess the significant environmental impacts of this project. Thank you. MS. LILLIAN NICHOLSON-I'm Lillian Nicholson, a resident of Cottage Hill for forty-five years. My concern tonight is with the proposed solution to the traffic problem connected with this project. My street has no sidewalks and it does have many children. I'd just like to go on record as being one of many who would hope that no group would ever allow the solution to include directing all traffic from Dixon Road to Aviation Road by way of Cottage Hill Road. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- Thank you. I'm running out of hands here. Anyone else? Yes sir. MR. JEFF KILBURN-My name is Jeff Kilburn and I want to resubmit that which I submitted at the earlier meeting but I want to make one comment. We can all err in our lives. We can make a mistake upon traffic and build new bridges and we can widen roads and we can make a mistake on school emollment and we can build new schools and if we build new schools, we can maybe move our little leagues fields if we can find another spot for them. But we can not build a new Rush Pond and therefore I respectfully request that the Town Board require a full environmental impact statement if you decide to proceed with this review process. Thank you. MR. RICK HAAG-My name is Rick Haag, I live on Fox Hollow Lane. I'd like to say, first before I just present a few remarks that there have been a great many concerns and legitimate points brought forth. Alot of them have taken place at the Planning Board sessions as well as back in March when originally the proposal to rezone this land was put forth. It was mentioned earlier about the senior citizens being the trojan horse on this project and I think another thing that needs to be considered by the town is that initially back in March when the town was considering this application, the proposed housing was going to cost between eighty and a hundred and forty thousand. At that point in time a check with the Warren County Association of Realtors had indicated that with the current times, back in March, March 4th that there were a hundred nineteen houses on the market between eighty thousand and a hundred and forty thousand. Yesterday, or Saturday I picked up a new listing and just to give a little margin here I cut the top end figure on this affordable housing and asked for a price range of eighty to a hundred and thirty thousand dollars in the Glens Falls, Queensbury area and there were at that point a hundred and seventy-nine homes on record as selling in that range. If you add the additional ten thousand to go to a hundred and forty thousand, there were an additional ten homes on the listing. So, you're looking at forty-eight to, or approximately fifty to sixty homes from March until Saturday that have been added to this price range of affordable housing. And I just think, again this was one of the things, we keep seeing some changes being put forth as each meeting is conducted and things just change and we try to appease those who are in power of the Town Board to, who are going to make the decisions on this particular development and I really would charge the board that they have to consider the citizens not only in our immediate vicinity of Fox Hollow Lane but all of that surrounding area as well as the rest of the citizens in Queensbury to take the appropriate actions to make sure that the comprehensive land use plan is adhered to. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else? I thought I'd just ask Jim Martin, what were the number of building permits for new homes we issued last year? Just for your information, this you'll find to be very interesting. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JIM MARTIN-Approximately a hundred and twenty-five new dwellings. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- The town is building annually on an average of a hundred and twenty-five to a hundred and thirty-five, fifty. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-That's lower, the previous two years were higher then that. It's been falling each of the last four years. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We just keep growing. UNKNOWN-Why would you buy an old house at the same price as a new house? You're hurting the people that have their houses for sale, that's what's happening. UNKNOWN-You're hurting the tax base at the same time because people can even sell their houses. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, anyone else care to add to what we have already built into this process? Mike, do you have a final statement? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I thank everybody for their comments even those that may not seem to be in agreement with what we are proposing. I've said before what we're trying to do is discuss the project in an intelligent manner and a reasonable manner, go forward on that basis. There still appears however to be some poor information out there. Maybe what we said earlier help clarify that as opposed to some of the comments that were made and I'm still not sure. I'm confused between the number of people that come here and say there's no need for this project and the same people who say that they think the impact is going to be significant tomorrow. This is a significant investment that this group is making in this project. We have, we think conservatively and realistically looked at a six to seven year build out based upon the past record of ourselves and maybe something that's not understood and maybe people have asked that we go out and look at other projects. Maybe you ought to take a look at some of the other projects that the developer has been involved in. This is not a track builder, it is somebody who builds by custom, who builds with a contract in hand who may build one or two speculation homes if you will as site examples but typically in my experience with Mike Vasiliou as a builder in the last ten years, he's built one or two spec houses, if you will. He builds custom homes. This is not something that's going to happen over night and it's just something that just seems to be getting missed when we're talking about it. The question as to the alternatives and the fright that the people on Cottage Hill or Midnight Drive fear, I probably would share with them. But we were just asked to take, look different ways and to present them as part of the report and in the report as to different ways that may be a configuration or change of traffic at the intersection of Aviation and Dixon Roads would or could be looked at. If you look at the report, the report itself says it does not suggest or recommend the change of traffic pattern that would put that traffic through those residential subdivisions. Whether it be Cottage Hill subdivision or streets that are in there or the streets that are a little bit to the left of there, Midnight Drive and, Manor Drive I think is probably not part of Cottage Hill. It was not our intention. We are not backing away from anything. All we did was respond to what we thought were concerns. Somebody gave a figure of open space of six percent. I think you are incorrect. If you look at just the area on top of the bluff and the park area, you're talking thirteen percent which is much greater then most of the standard subdivisions that everybody here lives in that is talked about what they think their quality of life is. If you build into that the no cut zones of the four or five acres, you build into that into the cutting restrictions of the back lines of each of the lots, you're talking about a significantly different type of atmosphere, type of quality of life then maybe people are enjoying in their own subdivisions. Somebody spoke about the expectations of Mr. Farone when he bought this property. This property when he bought it was zoned MR5, one dwelling unit per five thousand square feet. You talk about the master plan and I agree that the master plan is an important document but the master plan like our zoning ordinance is a living document. It is one that is changed and one that will be changed in the future. The people five years ago didn't know everything. This new committee that has been formed is probably going to change the master plan in many other areas of the town, they haven't considered this area. So, I reject out of hand any suggestions that there's a conflict of interest because Mr. Vasiliou sits on that board. It's up to this board to make the recommendation or make the decision. It's not that board that's going to make the decision upon which he sits and I'm trying to take the high road. I still try to take the high road but I question the motivation of some people when they are in competition with this developer and they are building or trying to sell fifteen thousand square foot lots and they don't bring it to the table and tell you that that's part of their motivation. We talk about further borings or other scientific tests. We've got an engineering report from a respected engineering firm that tells you that this is his finding based upon acceptable testing that has been done. I think it's been looked at by Rist Frost. I think it was looked at by Rist Frost which is a consultant to the town, not to the developer prior to us submitting it, prior to us actually undertaking the expense and undergoing that testing. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to find out whether or not that's a fair showing of where the groundwater is in this particular site. I said I was surprised. I've always taken the position or tried to take the position, I'm not an engineer. I don't try and make engineering determinations or propose that I give you engineering opinions. I did not say I was surprised because the site slopes towards Rush Pond or the, and that's another misconception. This wetland is not part of the designated critical environmental area to Rush Pond. This wetland, as I understand it feeds by stream under the Northway, back under the Northway to the west before it gets to Rush Pond and there is a significant geographical or geological deposit of gravel and soil between the two wet areas. But this is not part of that CEA. To say that it is, to infer that it is, to say that that's the grounds for the need of an FEIS, is not being realistic with facts. We've tried to present from day one, simple facts. We've limited the opinion except when they are based upon facts. Whether it be the traffic study, whether it be the soils study, whether it be the archeological study, we have not presented anything in the nature of speculation and although, with due respect, I've heard many of the concerned neighbors speak at a number of meetings, they talked about part of the SEQRA process is to give full public input. I'm fearful that this project even though it's only a hundred and eleven single family homes, is taking on a life it's own which seems to be a problem that we sometimes have with projects simply because of where you locate them or where they're situated. Not as to the actual size of the project. I don't know what other input you're going to have. You held one public hearing, you've had at least, this is your third public hearing if we're doing two public hearings at one time and I would ask my comments tonight, I assume everyone else would want their comments to be considered for both public hearings that are scheduled for eight o'clock, seven o'clock tonight. I don't know what other public input you're going to have. We've had neighborhood meetings. We've been to the County Planning Board, the Town Planning Board, and we've been here. The other question seems, one other question seemed to be, what happens to the area that's designated as senior citizen housing, that's set aside for senior citizen housing. When you go through the PUD process, the beauty of the PUD process is you tie up the land with the application as submitted and we have been very careful in our application to avoid issues of impact and I don't think that's setting us up for a conditional negative dec. What we're asking for is an approval of a plan as we've submitted it. We recognize as an example that there would be potential questions of archeological nature if we included that area that we studied within the development confines. We excluded that to avoid that issue. That's not setting us up for a conditional negative dec. That's saying, approve it as it is. I think the letter from Shuckak says, any construction within a hundred feet should be fenced so as not to allow erosion onto the sites. We simply have included that in our suggested PUD agreement and the same thing on the senior citizen housing. What we would suggest is an agreement that says that, it is understood and agreed developer will convey the area shown for senior citizens at market value to a developer approved by the town. The developer will agree to hold that area for a period of up to five years subject to the town approving the developer and operator of the proposed senior citizen housing. The ultimate developer of that area will be encouraged by the town and by this developer to set aside a portion of the area for re-establishment of Karner Blue Butterfly habitat in conjunction with New York State DES. In the event that the town is unable to find and approve a developer and operator within five years of the date of final approval of the first state of the PUD by the Town Planning Board, then the developer shall have the option of applying to the Town Board for development of that area for single family housing. We're giving the town full and absolute control. Go out and find a developer within the next five years. You've heard one speaker here say that, that's not a problem and we also aren't even guaranteeing ourself that we can use the property at the end of the five years. It says that we have the option at the end of five years of applying to this board. You recently have had applications from, I think another PUD owner within the town to change or modify parts of those PUD's. I think Hiland Park came back for some modifications of some nature. I really don't know what you did, whether you approved the modifications or didn't approve the modifications. But once we submit this as zoning, you have set the standards, you have set the control, it is out of our hands at that time. We would like to have the option of coming back to you in five years if you don't do anything with the property. But that's the extent or the limit that we're talking about. I guess I was picked up on my comments when I said that we would be building between a hundred and ten thousand and a hundred and sixty thousand for sale price. I'm sorry, I misspoke, I was focusing on single family homes. The duplexes still would be, we believe at eighty thousand. We're not trying to be cute with words. When we first started talking people got all concerned about, is this going to be low income housing. We tried to say, not in our opinion, it was going to be affordable housing and then everybody chuckles and says, what's affordable. My own opinion is, we're better off telling you what our square footage is going to be and what our anticipated market value is. The square footage probably tells you more about type housing then the actual pricing. That's going to be the nature of the housing and it's going to be Michael Vasiliou, fourteen hundred to eighteen hundred square foot houses. Again, we've heard about you can't rebuild Rush Pond. I have an interest in Rush Pond. I have a piece of property on Glen Lake that feeds, take it's water source probably from the headwaters of Rush Pond. I have no intention of doing anything that's going to harm them. I told them that, I told everybody on this team in the very beginning, if we didn't show that we were not going to in any manner affect that, I didn't want to part of it. I stood before this board and every other board in this town too often and tried to support and protect the waters of Rush Pond and as they affect Glen Lake. I have not seen one person, whether they be from Clough Harbor, whether they be people that are employed by other engineering firms, or wherever that have given you one scientific indication that anything that we have presented will in any way have a significant or a negative impact on the quality of water to Rush Pond. Everything is the contrary. So, we can all throw balloons up but I think it's to the point where we've got to take a look at what's realistic, what's probable and then make a determination based upon that and thank you again for you time. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Fred, I think there should be one correction and Mike, I think you should make it, you mentioned this was going to be rezoned SR20 actually it is going to be a combination of rezoning because of the Senior Housing. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Yes...as I understand it the Senior Citizen Housing will be MR5 thousand square feet the seven point one acres and then the balance of the land that is going to be used for single family will be SR20 and a good portion of the land conservation will remain LC ... if that corrects the record. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thanks, Mike. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -Jim, I have a question? Do we have any plan on when the engineering report is going to come back in reference to phase II of Aviation Road? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-The Scope of Services had that done this fall we are concentrating obviously now on the actual construction project which goes to Manor Drive when that is completed which is the design should be done early July then we move into the planning phase of that project which was the plan for traffic mitigation on the western portion of Aviation Road from Manor Drive extending through to Potter Road intersection. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-I thought the second phase went all the way to West Mountain? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARTIN-That was a third phase that we are going to speak to in general terms because it was the thinking of when the scope of services was developed that the primary problem was in front of the school and that is being taken care of with a capital project and the next problem area would be that segment from Manor Drive to Potter Road and then there will be analysis of that third section but that did not seem to be the focus of the problem. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That would be limited, very limited all the way to West Mountain Road. Someone had their hand up down there. Yes, Sir. MR. JOHN CAFFREY -John Caffrey again for the record. I would just like to respond to a few things Mr. O'Connor said where he seemed to be responding to me and I do not think he stated, he might have misinterpreted what I said on some of these things. He said that this wetland is not part of the Rush Pond Critical Environmental Area, I have not looked at the map to see what the boundary of it is, but under the new SEQRA regulations that took effect January 1st. any project that could impact the environmental characteristics of a critical environmental area needs to be looked at. It used to be under the old regulations it had to be in or adjacent too a critical environmental area now it casts a much broader net anything that might effect it. As to where the water goes, I am just looking at the Zoning Map here which is based on topographic maps it seems to show water goes under the Northway turns around and comes back out the other side and into the Rush Pond wetland. Somebody, someone engineers or someone is going to have to go look at that but this states on the map it appears that this water does drain into Rush Pond wetland. Based on what Ms. Parkins says there is a potential until they verify definitely which way ground water flows that pollutants and fertilizers could be going from this subdivision into this water shed and into the Rush Pond watershed. As far as Mr. Farone and his purchase of the property when it was MR5 I did not discuss what Mr. Farone's expectations were I said whether or not, it appears he could earn a reasonable return. Regardless of what it was zoned when he purchased it I think he can still earn a reasonable return based on what he paid for it several years ago. Lastly Mr. O'Connor seems to imply because this is a six or seven year build out that we should not be worried about traffic and all these kinds of things. I am not sure why that is significant I think most people intend to still be around is six or seven years and the fact that these things are not all one hundred and ninety units aren't going to be built tomorrow isn't really a consideration to be looked at here. What we have to look at is what it is going to be like at the end of the whole project you cannot just look at as a phased thing you have to consider the final build out and the total impact of the whole project. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- Thanks John. Mike, once we get into this duel Lawyer thing we are liable to be here forever. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-One comment, as you all know there is a new requirement of the Warren County Bar Association we all have beards. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-You listen well too. Yes, Sir. MR. DENNIS MOON-My name is Dennis Moon I live at 33 Helen Drive and thanks for letting me come out at a late hour. Especially recently this evening several learned and studied individuals have come up and engaged in some fairly technical descriptions of pros and cons of the project. I did not come here tonight with anything prepared to make any points though I was here to listen and learn and some of this technical discussion recently I think a lot of the more fundamental common sense concerns of the citizenry around this project are getting lost. We are worried this is speaking ..point here tonight, we are worried that the economics of the area do not support housing of this magnitude when there is already at least three times this many single family homes for sale ..right now. The second point is that the Queensbury School System absolutely is going to be effect. We have already voted to approve some wooden frame temporary structures for the Elementary School because it is over crowed and they have not figured out what to do about the long term problem anyway it has got to be effected. The class sizes are already appalling in the Elementary School. Those two reasons alone a project of this size would be a concern to Queensbury Town Residents I believe no matter where in the Town it was built. If you go beyond that the issues of crowded roads and whether it is D or E what difference does it make if your.. .homes .. would you be happy? It is already a big issue it certainly is not going to get better with a housing development in this part of the town. There, it sounds to me like there are.. environmental issues, whether it is the issues of Rush Pond I known that in Helen Drive we experienced significant storm and winter melt water problems in the area because it is not able to handle it all there is certainly some environmental questions there they concern us all. The fifth thing is the last point is the issue of the balance in the area, it is an area where there has already been several developments built there is a lot of stress in the area in terms of the balance of services available to handle this growth and if the Town, if the project goes ahead I think the developers have been quite straight forward and about the things that are included in their project. The things that would be left to us to find a way to handle the schools the roads the sidewalks in the area, this part of Queensbury is becoming so developed it looks more like a village than a township and that applies, again more traffic lights and things like that. These are basically that I think have lead most of the people that proceeded me to speak out against this project in this part of Queensbury at the time. Please don't move this, I think the technical issues are well to be proposed and I am grateful to the people who took the time to do the homework on both sides but lets not over look these general common sense issues that concern us all tonight. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Are there any other first time speakers before we go to the second round here? I see one more hand out there, I am catching the devil up here for allowing this thing to go on but I... -I apologize but I just wanted to address the issue about the percentage of land that is being reserved for common area. The six percent COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Excuse me but I think for our Secretary here MR. MARK HOFFMAN-Mark Hoffman, 32 Fox Hollow Lane. The six percent figure that I have got was a quotation from the professional staff of the Planning Department from the previous Planning Board meeting related to this project and I can tell you from personal experience that area bordering the wet land is a steep incline I do not see that is developable land unless you can build on stilts or what? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else, we will what do you think Council, close the public hearing or TOWN COUNCIL MARK SCHACHNER-You certainly can if you wish I think you should point out very clearly for the record and at least one speaker seemed to mis-understand this that the public hearing that has just been conducted or that is being conducted is really two public hearings and I believe one speaker made reference to possibly having to include these comments twice for the record the Supervisor did make clear at the outset when the public hearing was opened that in fact what we did in fact was open jointly and together both the public hearings on the proposed rezoning and the proposed Planned Unit Development, so what we have conducted is a joint public hearing for both purposes and all the comments are included for both public hearings. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Ok. Thank you. Before we do close, is there any letters to be read into the record? -Ltr. Dear Mr. Champagne, I have to write and express my views on the Indian Ridge Development. First of all I love and am very proud to be a resident of Queensbury, we purchased our first home here 16 years ago. My sister's who live in New Hampshire are always in awe of how beautiful our Town is especially the school grounds and surrounding area's. The way Indian Ridge is zoned now doesn't bother me but to change the density to 190 homes doesn't make any sense. There are hundred of homes in Queensbury for sale. There is no reason to disturb the environment of the Queensbury area. Please remember our Queensbury motto "Home of Natural Beauty A good Place to live. Sincerely, Mary Jane Canale 28 Fox Hollow Lane Isl -Ltr. Dear Town Board We wish to express our deepest concern about the re-zoning proposal for a new development known as Indian Ridge, near the Queensbury School and adjacent to the residents in and around the Fox Hollow Lane area. We question the need to change the current zoning of this area. We do not believe a housing development as dense as Indian Ridge is necessary. This proposal for a zoning change seemingly ignores or fails to address many potential problems. First, traffic on Aviation Road is currently a problem without factoring in Indian Ridge. Secondly, Queensbury residents are not on a sewer system and we are concerned about the environmental impact the development would have on the wet lands and Glen Lake. Finally, we are concerned about who will be responsible for paying for new infrastructure, new school buildings and monitoring & removing environmental contaminants? We chose to live and invest in this area because it offered the quality oflife we desired. Contemplating the rezoning of this area places the future quality of our community in jeopardy. We fear that this re-zoning is being done on a whim. Such whimsical re-zoning could lead to the beginnings of urban sprawl that is not necessary and something many of us have tried to escape. Thank you. Sincerely, Isl David and Lisa Allard 37 Fox Hollow Lane -Ltr. Dear Connie, Since Marcie and I will be out of town all next week, we wanted to express our concerns about the rezoning and subsequent development project being proposed by Mr. Vasiliou. As home owners in the town, we are very concerned about our property values. There are already too many homes in Queensbury! For sale signs are so numerous that it is hard to believe that any financial institution would consent to supporting such a project. Has a real market analysis been conducted? As most of us are painfully aware, our area has lost a lot of good jobs in the last twenty years. Where are the people going to come from that will purchase and occupy these nearly two hundred new homes. Who will buy all the homes that are already on the market? We are also concerned with the impact on our environment and traffic density but these points can be very adequately addressed with proper planning and compliance with existing regulations, given sufficient funds are also in his and the town's budget. However, the issue of available buyers for these new units is not so easily understood. We simply do not agree that there is a market for these units Thank you for listening to our view and for giving so much of your time and energy in service to all of us in Queensbury. Sincerely Isl Jim & Marcie Patnode -Ltr. Dear Town Board Members: We would like to express our opposition to the planned development proposed by Michael 1. Vasilou. These are the reasons for our opposition: 1.) The project would denigrate the environment, especially having adverse impact on the watershed area of Rush pond. 2.) The wooded area now provides an effective and natural buffer from the noise and pollution of traffic on the Northway. Any significant clearing of land in this area would subject the neighborhoods to the west and north of this project with as intolerable and continuous sound of traffic. 3.) The increased traffic this project would create on an already overburdened Aviation Road would create a safety problem as well as increased cost to the citizens of this town for additional road work and traffic signs if not traffic lights. 4.) Do we really need another development in Queensbury with the overabundance of houses of every price level available throughout the Town? This will only impact the quality oflife of the developer if he decides to reside in one of the houses he builds, but it will impact all the people of Queensbury with more noise, more traffic, increased taxes for providing for the necessary infrastructure of a development of this size, as well as increased dissatisfaction of the planning process which seems to regard any undeveloped area as a must for additional blacktop. Truly Yours, sls Roman G. & Martha M. Jarosh -Ltr. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- Thank you. With that we are going to have one more ok. MS. JANICE STOTLER-My name is Janice Stotler 19 Heinrick Street Queensbury and I sorry to drag this on but I do feel compelled to say one more thing, I do want to say that this does look lovely on paper I do want to applaud them for having no cut zone, too many developers just go in a strip all the trees off the land and ...so that is something very ...consideration. My own concern is the seven year build out, ok and they said that the Senior Citizen complex would be toward the seventh year we need SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No. If they were approved they could start that the next day, they have five years to get it up... MS. STOTLER-I mis-understood it..we need Senior Citizen housing now, that would be good. My only other problem was there was a lot of developments that have been started here I do not know what the build out on those were but they have never been finished. ...that they will go in now strip the lots to a certain extent there will be spec homes that will remain empty and then we have a development that does not come out like it looks on paper and we have cleared land do we have any guarantee that the project will ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Phasing and the fact that they have to put the infrastructure in before they can build, you have to be on a Town approved road in order to get a building permit and with the financial investment there would be in putting in the infrastructure and the water lines etc. I do not think you are going to find somebody who is going to go in and start wholesaling and stripping off. MS. STOTLER-It is just a concern I have seen a few other places like Ambershire where they started out COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And I will point out to you that this one of the differences between a regular subdivision and PUD that the protection is much greater in a PUD than it is in a regular subdivision of what can go on in there. MS. STOTLER-Ok. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- Thank you very much. With that I am going to close the public hearing. I want to cover all bases unless the Board has something more to add? Ok. Thank you all very much. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 10:52 P.M. 5 Min. recess RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING HISTORIAN'S ADVISORY BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 264, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is desirous of establishing an Historian's Advisory Board to assist the Town Historian in addressing how the Town can better publicize and disseminate information about its heritage and history to the community, and WHEREAS, Advisory Boards are authorized to be established in accordance with ~3-4 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby creates and appoints an Historian's Advisory Board, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Historian's Advisory Board shall consist of eleven (11) members appointed for initial terms expiring on January 1, 1998 with succeeding two (2) year terms on a biannual basis thereafter in accordance with ~3-6(E)(l) of the Town Code, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Historian shall submit a list of suggested citizens from the Town of Queensbury for appointment to the newly created Board to the Town Board for their approval, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby makes particular note of the procedures that the Advisory Board must follow as set forth in ~3-7 of the Code and the Town Historian shall provide each Advisory Board Member with a copy of Chapter 3 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion held: Councilman Monahan requested a clarification be made regarding the wording in third resolved clause... it was recommended that the wording be changed to citizens from the Town of Queensbury.. . agreed to by the Board ... vote taken... RESOLUTION RETAINING SCUDDER ASSOCIATES FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTATION ON DRAINAGE PROBLEM RESOLUTION NO. 265, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to retain the services of an engineering firm to provide professional assistance in conjunction with a drainage problem which has arisen at the intersection of Ferris Drive and Wings Court in Queensbury Forest, and WHEREAS, Scudder Associates Engineers, Surveyors & Planners, in their letters dated May 20, 1996 and June 12, 1996 has offered to perform the necessary engineering services for the project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the retention of Scudder Associates to provide the services described in the preambles hereof at a cost not to exceed $3,600., to be paid for from Account No.: 01-8540-440 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to sign an agreement for the professional services, said agreement to be in a form to be approved by Town Counsel. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES : Mrs. Goedert ABSENT: None Discussion held: Councilman Goedert-I think that this has been an opened proposal I have three complaints in it, number one there are no funds in here that say what it will cost us to furnish legal services, there is no cost in here for VanDusen and Steves to make ROWand there is no RFP as to why this does not go out for bid? If I was given this proposal and I know the Town games that we play you bet your bottom dollar I will come in under the amount. Sense when do we walk up to a engineer and say do this for me or give me this proposal why is it not open to all the people. Supervisor Champagne-We do it all the time. We do not have to bid professional services. What we do is get a reputable person who we have worked with over time and then you are assured that you are getting professional services with the quality that you are asking for and by bidding it you could end up with far less. Councilman Geodert-I do not believe it is the problem of the Town I think is problem of the residents, they have built out around the drainage ditches. Councilman Pulver-We need to have an engineer come back with his solutions... RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CARRY OVER OF VACATION TIME RESOLUTION NO. 266, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, Pamela Martin, Legal Secretary, has requested that she be allowed to carry over two (2) vacation days past her anniversary date of July 5, 1996, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes that Pamela Martin, Legal Secretary, be allowed to carry over two (2) vacation days past her anniversary date of July 5, 1996. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996 by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BIDS FOR #2 FUEL OIL, DIESEL OIL, AND KEROSENE RESOLUTION NO. 267, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, duly advertised for bids for #2 fuel oil, diesel oil, and kerosene, pursuant to Town of Queensbury Specifications, and WHEREAS, BIGELOW'S OIL SERVICE, INC., has submitted the lowest bid for the fuel oil, diesel oil, and kerosene for all locations, and WHEREAS, copies of the bids have been presented to this meeting, and WHEREAS, Darleen M. Dougher, Town Clerk, has recommended that the bid be awarded to the aforesaid bidder, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby awards the bid for #2 fuel oil, diesel oil, and kerosene for all locations, to BIGELOW'S OIL SERVICE, INC., and that said #2 fuel oil, diesel oil and kerosene be paid for from appropriate accounts in each department from the 1996 budgets. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE PERMIT TO LOCATE A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF MOBILE HOME COURT FOR DAVID AND CORNELIA KELLEY RESOLUTION NO. 268, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized pursuant to ~1l3-12 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to issue permits for mobile homes to be located outside of mobile home courts under certain circumstances, and WHEREAS, David and Cornelia Kelley have filed an application for a "Mobile Home Outside a Mobile Home Court" Revocable Permit, in accordance with said ~1l3-12 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to locate a mobile home at property situated at Upper Sherman Avenue, Queensbury, New York 12804, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury determines it to be appropriate to hold a public hearing regarding said permit, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on July 1st, 1996 at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application by David and Cornelia Kelley for a "Mobile Home Outside a Mobile Home Court" Revocable Permit on property situated at Upper Sherman Avenue, Queensbury, New York, and at that time all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized to publish and provide notice of said public hearing in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury, to post a copy thereof on the bulletin board of the Office of the Town Clerk, and to mail a copy thereof to the Town Planning Board, at least 10 days prior to said hearing. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AMENDING RES. 188, 96 REGARDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS, THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND BERKSHIRE-QUEENSBURY, L.L.C. RESOLUTION NO. 269, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury by resolution no. 188,96, authorized an agreement between the City of Glens Falls, the Town of Queensbury, and Berkshire-Queensbury, L.L. C. authorizing Berkshire-Queensbury, L.L.C., which is constructing a CVS Pharmacy, Chiropractor's Office and lease space on certain real property located at 5 Main Street, Queensbury, tax map no.: 130-3-18, to hook-up and transmit waste water to the sewage facilities owned and maintained by the City of Glens Falls, and WHEREAS, Berkshire-Queensbury, L.L.C., has applied for a subdivision of tax map no.: 130-3- 18 into two parcels, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board has conditionally approved such subdivision subject to appropriate modification of the Agreement referenced above, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends Resolution No.: 188,96, such that the approval of the hook-up of Berkshire-Queensbury, L.L.C., to the sewage facilities of the City of Glens Falls shall apply to both parcels after the subdivision of parcel no. 130-3-18, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the agreement authorized by resolution no. 188, 96 be amended in a form to be approved by Town Counsel. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1996 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 270, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1996 Budget, and WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1996 budget: TOWN CLERK: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1410-4400 (Misc. Contractual) 01-1410-2032 (ComputerISoftware) 400. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the 1996 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 17th of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BID FOR PURCHASE OF BITUMINOUS CONCRETE RESOLUTION NO. 271, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, duly advertised for the purchase of bituminous concrete, as more specifically identified in bid documents, specifications previously submitted and in possession of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, Paul Naylor, Town Highway Superintendent, has made recommendations in connection with the bids, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby awards the bid for the bituminous concrete to Peckham Materials Corporation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that said items are to be paid for from the appropriate Highway Department Account. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MODIFICATION OF ROADWAY DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN CEDAR COURT SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION NO. 272, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, a roadway drainage easement presently exists in the Cedar Court Subdivision on property owned by the Cedar Court Homeowners Association, Inc., and WHEREAS, the Michaels Group, L.L.C. and LAD Enterprises, Inc., the Co-Sponsors of the Cedar Court Homeowners Association Inc., have requested that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury approve the relocation of the roadway drainage easement as approved by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board in 1995, when the Planning Board approved reconfiguration of the lots in the subdivision to reduce the total number of units from 64 to 48, and WHEREAS, a survey prepared by VanDusen & Steves showing the existing easement and the proposed relocated easement has been submitted to this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the relocation of the roadway drainage easement in Cedar Court Subdivision as described in the preambles hereinabove, and requests the Michaels Group, L.L.C. and LAD Enterprises, Inc., to submit to the Town of Queensbury a proposed deed for the new easement area from the current title holder, LAD Enterprises, Inc., to the Town and a proposed deed from the Town to LAD Enterprises, Inc., for the reconveyance of the existing drainage area, and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Counsel to execute any documents that may be necessary to arrange for the acceptance and recording of said deeds, including the causing of the placement of the Town seal on any documents that may be necessary. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996 by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None Discussion held: Councilman Monahan-Requested an explanation from Executive Director Martin. Executive Director Martin-This subdivision has gone through several modifications the lastest one of which reduced the density of the subdivision by approximately twelve units because they went from what was predominately three and four units buildings to duplexes when that happens the lot configuration changes and in many cases widened and as you can see the existing drainage easement lies on what was a lot boundary and when the adjustments were made the easement for both of these shifted now along the new lot lines and that is the prime reason for the shifts. In terms of the functioning of the drainage system, there is not going to be any change to that and we now have them in compliance down there and we continue to monitor it. Councilman Monahan-This change is not going to make any more impact on the Pond or on that drainage area through there. Executive Director Martin-Correct. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE AND EXECUTION OF PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 273, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, in connection with the operation of the summer Parks and Recreation program by the Town of Queensbury, Harold Hansen, Director of Parks and Recreation, has recommended to the Town Board that certain recreation activities be provided in various areas of the Town on properties which are not owned by the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, these various areas of the Town are suitable for recreation activities to be conducted by the Town of Queensbury Parks and Recreation Department thereon, and WHEREAS, Harold Hansen has made tentative arrangements, subject to the approval of the Town Board, with the owners of certain lands in North Queensbury and Glen Lake respectively to lease said lands for use in connection with the Town's summer Parks and Recreation program, and WHEREAS, Harold Hansen has recommended to the Town Board that the Town of Queensbury lease said lands for recreation purposes for the period from June 24, 1996 to August 16, 1996, and WHEREAS, Harold Hansen has informed the Town Board that he has inspected these three parcels of land and has found each to be suitable and appropriate for the designated recreational purposes, and WHEREAS, it would serve a legitimate Town purpose to provide summer Parks and Recreational programs at these locations in North Queensbury and Glen Lake, and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions set forth in each of the proposed leases appear to be reasonable, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury enter into written lease agreements with the respective owners of the aforesaid two parcels ofland for a period from June 24, 1996 to August 16, 1996, substantially under the terms and conditions of the proposed lease agreement annexed hereto, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Fred Champagne, Town Supervisor, be authorized and empowered to execute said leases in form approved by Town Counsel on behalf of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996 by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ACQUISITION OF FAITH BIBLE CHURCH PROPERTY BY THE OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE RESOLUTION NO. 274, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Open Space Institute is desirous of acquiring the property currently owned by Faith Bible Church (Tax Map Parcel No.: 148-1-1) near Corinth Road, in the Town of Queensbury, the former Camp Jadamada property, and WHEREAS, the acquisition of said parcel would enhance the protection of the Hudson River shoreline adjacent to the Hudson Pointe Nature Preserve, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Recreation Commission, the Community Development Department, and the Department of Parks and Recreation by memorandum dated March 5, 1996 have determined that said property provides unique opportunities for the development of both active and passive recreation facilities, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is desirous of investigating the possibility of taking ownership of said property for the purpose of developing a recreation facility, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is extremely supportive and advocates the acquisition of the Faith Bible Church Property by the Open Space Institute. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PERMIT FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY RESOLUTION NO. 275, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, Bay Fireworks, Inc., on behalf of Entertronics, Inc. - WCKM Radio Station, has requested permission to conduct a fireworks display as follows: SPONSOR: WCKM FM! AM Radio Station PLACE: West Mountain Ski Center DATE: July 3, 1996 TIME: 9:30 P.M. (approx.) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk, in accordance with the Penal Law of the State of New York, ~405, is hereby authorized to issue a permit subject to the following conditions: A. An application for permit be filed which sets forth: 1. The name of the body sponsoring the display and the names of the persons actually to be in charge of the firing of the display. 2. The date and time of day at which the display is to be held. 3. The exact location planned for the display. 4. The age, experience and physical characteristics of the persons who are to do the actual discharging of the fireworks. 5. The number and kind of fireworks to be discharged. 6. The manner and place of storage of such fireworks prior to the display. 7. A diagram of the grounds on which the display is to be held showing the point at which the fireworks are to be discharged, the location of all buildings, highways, and other lines of communication, the lines behind which the audience will be restrained and the location of all nearby trees, telegraph or telephone lines or other overhead obstructions. B. Proof of insurance be received which demonstrates insurance coverage through an insurance company licensed in the State of New York, and that the Town of Queensbury is named as an additional insured and that the insurance coverage contain a hold harmless clause which shall protect the Town of Queensbury; C. Inspections and approval must be made by the Queensbury Fire Marshal and the Chief of West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., D. Cleanup of the area must be completed by 10:00 a.m., the following day, and all debris must be cleaned up including all unexploded shells, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the permit or letter of authorization by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury shall, pursuant to the Penal Law of the State of New York, ~405, provide: the actual point at which the fireworks are to be fired shall be at least two hundred feet from the nearest permanent building, public highway or railroad or other means of travel and at least fifty feet from the nearest above ground telephone or telegraph line, tree or other overhead obstruction, that the audience at such display shall be restrained behind lines at least one hundred and fifty feet from the point at which the fireworks are discharged and only persons in active charge of the display shall be allowed inside these lines, that all fireworks that fire a projectile shall be so set up that the projectile will go into the air as nearby (nearly) as possible in a vertical direction, unless such fireworks are to be fired from the shore of a lake or other large body of water, when they may be directed in such manner that the falling residue from the deflagration will fall into such lake or body of water, that any fireworks that remain unfired after the display is concluded shall be immediately disposed of in a way safe for the particular type of fireworks remaining, that no fireworks display shall be held during any wind storm in which the wind reaches a velocity of more than thirty miles per hour, that all the persons in actual charge of firing the fireworks shall be over the age of eighteen years, competent and physically fit for the task, that there shall be at least two such operators constantly on duty during the discharge and that at least two soda-acid or other approved type fire extinguisher of at least two and one-half gallons capacity each shall be kept at as widely separated points as possible within the actual area of the display. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None OLD BUSINESS 1. Supervisor Champagne requested that the Town Board Members by Monday Nights Workshop have a list of candidates that they wish to interview for comptroller... 2. Report on So. Queensbury drainage system... Town Council Schachner reported that the Highway Department is still trying to meet with the affected individuals. 3. No. Queensbury Sewer-The County has agreed to spread that 10% County wide rather than just the local community, picking up the local share of 10% so it will be the entire county paying taxes into that 1O%. Supervisor Champagne-Noted he met with the Department Heads to discuss performance appraisals process, there were a number of concerns that they had: 1. The one from Amtek was too complicated would like to simplify that. 2. If we do not do it town wide with all departments that is hardly worth doing at all. Noted the formation of a group to sit down and simplify the evaluation instrument itself and to look further into it as far as proceeding. They also suggested that they have two board members sit in on that committee... Asked Carol Pulver to be the representative from the Board... TOWN BOARD MATTERS ATTORNEY MATTERS OPEN FORUM RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 276.96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver RESOLVED, the Audit of Bills as appears on the abstract dated June 17, 1996 and numbering 96- 2494 through 96-2731 and totaling $317,498.10 be and hereby is approved. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 277.96 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters and labor relations grievance. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE SESSION AND REGULAR SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 278.96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby adjourns from its Executive Session and Regular Session. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None No further action taken. Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury